[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 78 (Thursday, June 7, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5907-S5954]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
BETTER EDUCATION FOR STUDENTS AND TEACHERS ACT--Resumed
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the Senate will
now resume consideration of S. 1, which the clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 1) to extend programs and activities under the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965.
Pending:
Jeffords amendment No. 358, in the nature of a substitute.
Kennedy (for Dodd) amendment No. 382 (to amendment No.
358), to remove the 21st century community learning center
program
[[Page S5908]]
from the list of programs covered by performance agreements.
Biden amendment No. 386 (to amendment No. 358), to
establish school-based partnerships between local law
enforcement agencies and local school systems, by providing
school resource officers who operate in and around elementary
and secondary schools.
Leahy (for Hatch) amendment No. 424 (to amendment No. 358),
to provide for the establishment of additional Boys and Girls
Clubs of America.
Helms amendment No. 574 (to amendment No. 358), to prohibit
the use of Federal funds by any State or local educational
agency or school that discriminates against the Boy Scouts of
America in providing equal access to school premises or
facilities.
Helms amendment No. 648 (to amendment No. 574), in the
nature of a substitute.
Dorgan amendment No. 640 (to amendment No. 358), expressing
the sense of the Senate that there should be established a
joint committee of the Senate and House of Representatives to
investigate the rapidly increasing energy prices across the
country and to determine what is causing the increases.
Hutchinson modified amendment No. 555 (to amendment No.
358), to express the sense of the Senate regarding the
Department of Education program to promote access of Armed
Forces recruiters to student directory information.
Bond modified amendment No. 476 (to amendment No. 358), to
strengthen early childhood parent education programs.
Feinstein modified amendment No. 369 (to amendment No.
358), to specify the purposes for which funds provided under
subpart 1 of part A of title I may be used.
Reed amendment No. 431 (to amendment No. 358), to provide
for greater parental involvement.
Dodd/Biden modified amendment No. 459 (to amendment No.
358), to provide for the comparability of educational
services available to elementary and secondary students
within States.
Amendment No. 459
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, there will now
be 1 hour of debate on the Dodd amendment No. 459 as modified, equally
divided and controlled.
Who seeks recognition?
The Senator from Connecticut, Mr. Dodd.
Mr. DODD. Thank you, Mr. President,
Mr. President, as I understand it, there is 1 hour of debate equally
divided on this amendment.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. There is.
Mr. DODD. I thank the President. I am somewhat disappointed that we
have not scheduled a vote on this amendment. But I am told that on the
expiration of an hour that I will have to set this amendment aside, and
that the minority floor leader of this bill is opposed to a vote
occurring on this amendment. I hope that we will have an opportunity to
cast a vote in this body on the amendment that I have offered on behalf
of myself, Senator Biden of Delaware, and Senator Reed of Rhode Island.
There is at least one other Member, or maybe two, who want to be
heard in support of this amendment. I ask the Chair on the expiration
of 10 minutes that I be notified to make sure I reserve time for others
who want to be heard on this amendment.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator will be so notified.
Mr. DODD. I thank the Chair.
Let me explain this amendment once again. I explained it when I
offered it yesterday afternoon, and again early last evening.
This is a very straight forward, simple amendment. I said yesterday
that if there is one word that could be used to describe the underlying
bill, it is the word ``accountability''--we want greater
accountability. I would add ``responsibility''--``accountability and
responsibility.'' Students, parents, school principals, teachers,
superintendents, and boards of education all have to be more
accountable and more responsible if we are going to improve the quality
of public education in our country.
There is no doubt in my mind that, while there has been improvement
in recent years in classrooms, there is room for more improvement. We
need to raise the next generation of young people to be prepared to
meet the challenges of the 21st century and be competitive in a global
economy.
In years past, a child raised in Connecticut, West Virginia,
Massachusetts, or New Hampshire, competed, if you will, with children
in the neighboring town or the neighboring county, maybe the
neighboring State.
Today, our children compete with children all over the world. So we
need to prepare a generation like no other in the history of this
Nation. Therefore, the issue of a sound, firm, good elementary and
secondary education is critical.
This bill mandates a number of things. We, will mandate, for the very
first time, that every child be tested every year from third grade
through eighth grade. That is a Federal mandate in this bill.
Mr. GREGG. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. DODD. I am happy to yield.
Mr. GREGG. I will note--and the Senator is familiar with this--just
to make it clear, the Federal Government already mandates that children
take a test in three grades. This just adds three more grades.
Mr. DODD. I accept that point. We do. My point being, my amendment
has been called intrusive. Because I have suggested that the States be
accountable and responsible, it is said that I am proposing a new
Federal intrusion into what has historically been a local and State
decisionmaking process. Yet, as my colleague from New Hampshire has
pointed out, we already mandate tests. And, this bill mandates even
more tests.
We also mandate standards for teachers at the local level. We are
going to tell school districts that if schools do not perform at a
certain level, we, the Federal Government, will require them to close
the school. We require the States to establish statewide content and
performance standards, and tests that are the same for all children in
the State.
The point is, we are mandating decisions at the local level. Down to
the level of detail of telling third graders, and their parents, when
they will be taking tests.
My amendment says that if we are going to ask for accountability and
responsibility from students, parents, school principals, teachers, and
school boards, is it unreasonable to ask States to be accountable?
Since 1965, we have mandated comparable educational opportunity for
students within school districts. This amendment simply says that there
should be comparable educational opportunity throughout the State.
Why do I say that? Of the total education dollar spent in our public
schools, 6 cents comes from the Federal Government, 94 cents comes from
State and local governments. In this bill, we are mandating that
schools and school districts do a better job. If they do not, there are
consequences. It is a Federal mandate. But the resource allocations are
not really there, nor are we insisting at a local or State level that
they meet their obligations.
My amendment says States must take on responsibility. If we are
asking students, and parents, and teachers, and schools, and school
districts to do better, why not the States?
Many States are working hard at this. But, nevertheless, many
children, simply by the accident of their birth, have a disparate level
of educational opportunity. They are born or raised in a school
district where the resources are not there. A child born in a more
affluent school district has an educational opportunity that is vastly
different.
I see it in my own State. I represent the most affluent State in
America on a per capita income basis, the State of Connecticut. I also
have communities in my State that are some of the poorest in America.
Hartford, our capital, was just rated as the eighth poorest city in
America.
So, even in my small State, there are children who attend some of the
best schools in America because we support education through a local
property tax, and others, just a few miles away, who have much less
educational opportunity, for the same reason.
Just as we are going to test children, and schools, and districts,
should we not also test States? It doesn't seem to
[[Page S5909]]
me that providing comparable opportunity to all children is too much to
ask.
As I pointed out earlier, there are a number of Federal mandates that
we already include in law. We withhold funds from States or school
districts if they do not pass certain laws concerning children and
guns, for example, in addition to the mandates I discussed earlier. I
am not drawing judgments, but pointing out that this law is full of
mandates, supported by both sides.
We bear a responsibility at the Federal level to do a good job to see
to it that dollars taxpayers have sent to us go back to support
education in the ways in which title I and the rest of ESEA. In this
bill, we say that school districts should do a better job, that parents
and teachers and school superintendents should do a better job.
Shouldn't States be included in that community of accountability and
responsibility? That is all I am suggesting with this amendment.
We leave it to the discretion of the Secretary of Education to
determine to what extent administrative funds would be withheld. We
give these States 6 years to at least demonstrate they are moving in
the direction of offering ``comparable'' educational opportunity. The
words I have chosen have been in the law for 36 years.
I see I have used 10 minutes.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair notifies the Senator from
Connecticut 10 minutes have expired.
Mr. DODD. I thank the Chair very much for that notice. I could have
gone on. As you can see, I was building up a head of steam.
I see my friend from New Hampshire is in the Chamber. There are
several colleagues--at least one I know of--who want to be heard on
this subject. I want to reserve some time for them.
Would my colleague from New Hampshire like to be heard at this time?
I know he wanted to respond to some of these very thoughtful and
persuasive arguments I am making.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, at this time I reserve my time because last
night I was so eloquent, I am just at a loss for words today.
Mr. DODD. So I have heard.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask unanimous
consent that the time be charged to both sides.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection? The Chair hears none.
The absence of a quorum has been suggested. The clerk will call the
roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the
quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. There being no objection, the quorum call
is rescinded.
The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. DODD. While I am waiting for one of my colleagues to enter the
Chamber, I will just take few more minutes to share some additional
thoughts on why I believe this amendment is worthwhile. And I will
anticipate some of the arguments my good friend from New Hampshire will
raise in his eloquent opposition to this amendment so that my
colleagues may have the benefit of these thoughts.
I am confident my colleague is going to call this a cookie-cutter
approach, that I want to establish, at a Federal level, what every
classroom in America is going to look like. Nothing could be further
from the truth. What this amendment requires is that every child in a
State have a comparable educational opportunity with other children in
that same State. Last evening, I cited the supreme court decision in
the State of New Hampshire, which makes the case more eloquently than I
could, saying that in the State of New Hampshire children, regardless
of the community in which they are raised, ought to have an equal
opportunity. I stress the word ``opportunity.'' I do not believe any of
us has an obligation to guarantee any person in America success. That
has never been the American way.
What we have always believed, since the founding days of our
Republic, is that equal opportunity has been the magnet which has drawn
the world to our shores. Where people had been denied opportunities for
a variety of reasons--religious, ethnic, gender, whatever--America has
been the place where they get judged on their abilities.
There are countless stories of people, coming from the most humble of
origins, who have risen to the very heights in their chosen field of
endeavor. I could cite the example of the Presiding Officer as a case
in point, if he wouldn't mind my making personal reference to it.
Providing an equal opportunity to everybody, that is all this is. What
better key to a success than an education? If you don't have a good
educational opportunity, it is very difficult to achieve your full
potential.
My great-grandmother, when she came to this country with my great-
grandfather, was about 16 years old. They were married. They came from
a small community on the western coast of Ireland. The first thing she
did--she couldn't read or write--was to get herself elected to the
local school board in the 19th century because she understood that
education was going to be the key. She had been raised in a country
where she couldn't go to school because of her religion. She understood
that an opportunity for herself and her family--her nine children, my
grandfather being the ninth child--was going to be education.
Educational opportunity is what I am focusing on. As we have been
saying to school districts across America for 36 years, you must
provide comparable educational opportunity for each child within that
school district. I am expanding that equation to say in each State
because the States really bear the responsibility for funding education
through decisions made by the legislatures. How do they fund education?
It is a State decision and a local decision. We are mandating things at
the local level and we are leaving out the States.
I am suggesting that States also have a responsibility to meet their
obligations. If we are going to mandate performance and not provide the
funding for it and exclude the States from being accountable, then we
are going to be back here a few years from now asserting that the
Federal Government mandated something, but did not fund it.
I see my friend from Maine, Senator Collins, on the floor who
believes passionately in our responsibility for funding special
education. I agree with her. In fact, we have all fought hard to see
that we meet that obligation.
The underlying bill we are considering mandates that children do
better in schools. We set standards that are going to have to be met.
We are going to have to provide resources for this. Some communities do
not have the resources; others do. To mandate a level of performance
and not provide the resources for children to achieve that level of
performance is dangerous.
I see my colleague from New Jersey. How much time remains on the
proponents' side of the amendment?
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The proponents have 14 minutes remaining.
Mr. DODD. I yield 10 minutes to my colleague from New Jersey.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New Jersey is recognized
for 10 minutes.
Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I am honored that the President pro
tempore is in the chair. It is great to see him there.
I also am pleased that I have this opportunity to stand in support of
the Dodd-Biden amendment, which is designed to make sure that every
child in America has access and the equal promise of a quality
education. The Dodd-Biden amendment on school service comparability is
a terrific initiative. This amendment is structured so all children
have access to comparable quality education--not identical, but quality
comparable education.
It is a goal that all of us surely have to believe is as important as
equal test results. Equal opportunity is just as important as equal
outcomes as measured by standardized tests.
This amendment is more than common sense, too. It actually fulfills
the promise that we as a nation make to all of our children--that we
will provide every child in America with access to a quality education
and the American promise that flows from that, regardless of race, the
family's income, or where they live.
Title I kids should have access to every opportunity every other
child in America has. It should not be a function of where they are
born or where they live. As my colleagues have already described, this
amendment would
[[Page S5910]]
encourage States to ensure that all students receive a comparable
education in several critical areas: class size, teacher
qualifications, curriculum, access to technology, and school safety.
These are just commonsense areas where we ought to be providing for
every child a similar educational experience.
They allow for the full potential of all of our children. Every child
has a right to a qualified teacher. All of us believe that. Every child
has a right to a challenging curriculum. Every child has a right to go
to school in a safe and quality school building. In my State of New
Jersey, there are many schools 100 years old, with an average age of 57
years. In our urban areas, it is a serious problem.
A ZIP Code should not determine the quality of a child's education. I
hope this is a basic premise on which we can all agree. Unfortunately,
in my State and around the country ZIP Codes often do determine the
quality of education a child receives. Children in one town where there
is a serious tax base for them to operate under receive a high-quality
education. In other towns, adjacent to those very same communities,
they receive a dramatically lower quality education because they don't
have the resources to provide for those quality teachers, the quality
schools, the kinds of curricula that will make a difference.
The reality is that property taxes in this country often determine
who gets a quality education and the resources available to provide
those services. This amendment strikes at the heart of that to try to
bring equality, comparability, not identical results and services, but
comparable ones.
Inequality by geography, race, and class is close to a national
disgrace. If you see the difference from one place to another in
schools across the country, it is hard to understand how we can
tolerate it. It robs children of equal access to the American promise.
Unless we address this problem, as the Dodd amendment would begin to
do, that inequality in our educational system will grow wider and wider
through time, perpetuating a sense of unfairness in our society. We
need to address it up front. This amendment does that.
Title I was designed to be the engine of change for low-income school
districts. This amendment would add fuel to that engine, requiring
States to ensure that all students receive a comparable education--
again, not identical, comparable--regardless of where they live or
their family's income, race, or nationality.
In my State of New Jersey, we have been struggling with this promise
for the better part of 30 years, providing equal access to a quality
education. Thirty years ago we had a case before our State supreme
court, Abbott v. Burke, that found the education offered to urban
students to be ``tragically inadequate'' and ``severely inferior.''
This was a landmark case. The court ordered the most comprehensive set
of educational rights for urban schoolchildren in the Nation.
In New Jersey, we are proud of this ruling. Under Abbott, urban
students have a right to school funding at spending levels of
successful suburban school districts what they call ``parity
funding''--this is what the Dodd-Biden amendment is working towards;
educationally adequate school facilities; and intensive preschool and
other supplemental programs to wipe out the disadvantages. These are
the basic educational services that every child should expect to have
access to and that every child needs to succeed in our society.
Fortunately, Abbott has been a success. It is not perfect. We haven't
made all of those transitions to comparable outcomes, but New Jersey
has made real progress in equalizing the education provided to students
in our communities. The Federal Government must also play an active
role in ensuring that the children who need the most, get the
most. Title I has gone a long way. What this amendment is doing is
asking States on a national basis to do what New Jersey has already
done.
A substantial portion of the debate on this education bill has been
about accountability. We demand accountability from students, teachers,
schools, everybody under the sun, but we also need to demand
accountability from the States with regard to providing comparable
funding, comparable services for our kids so they can get to those
equal outcomes. For example, starting in third grade, we will begin
testing all students, with drastic measures for failing scores. We
require equal outcomes on test scores, but we will not provide equal
resources. I find that hard to believe. That is not consistent with
America's sense of fairness. We demand accountability of students,
teachers, and schools, but we do not address the glaring disparity
built into the system of how we provide resources to those schools.
I support high standards. I support accountability, but
accountability measures alone are not sufficient to provide an adequate
education. We must ensure that every school and every child has the
level of resources necessary for a rigorous education and necessary to
meet those standards.
It is in this light that I strongly support the Dodd-Biden amendment,
because it goes right at that equality of opportunity, through
resources, that is critical to ensuring equality of outcomes.
I thank the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Dayton). The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. DODD. I thank my colleague from New Jersey for his very eloquent
statement. In my State of Connecticut a real effort has been made to
address this issue, as in New Jersey. In Minnesota as well. Many of our
States are working hard at this but, as the Senator from New Jersey
said, there is still a huge gap in terms of educational opportunity.
Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to my colleague from Minnesota.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Senator from New Jersey.
Let me just in 3 minutes lend my support to this very important
amendment. I will try to do this a little differently. I think this
amendment that is offered by Senator Dodd, joined by Senator Biden, is,
at least to me, obvious. This is an amendment offered by a Senator who
spends a lot of time in schools. Not every Senator does. Senator Dodd
is in schools all the time in Connecticut and probably around the
country.
What Senator Dodd is saying is this comparability amendment has to do
with making sure we deal with--and I am sure that the most noted author
of children's education, Jonathan Kozol, is smiling. This is all about
his book ``Savage Inequality.'' What the Senator is saying is let us
have some comparability when it comes to class size, access to
technology, safe schools, curriculum, and teachers.
I would just say to Senator Dodd that as we have gone forward with
this bill, I have had all of these e-mails from around the country from
all of these teachers, sometimes parents, sometimes students, but these
teachers are the ones who know, these are the teachers who are--I think
the Senator's sister is a teacher in fact--in the inner-city schools.
They are in the trenches. They have stayed with it. They are totally
committed. They are saying: For God's sake, please, also in the Senate,
above and beyond talking about annual testing, give us the tools to
make sure the children can achieve. Please talk about the importance of
good teachers, qualified teachers. Please talk about the importance of
access to technology. Please talk about the importance of good
curriculum, of small class size. Please talk about the importance of
dividing school buildings. Please talk about the importance that
schools should be safe. Please talk about all of the resources that
will make it possible for all the children in America to have the same
opportunity to learn.
That is what this amendment is about. That is why this amendment is
so important.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time, if I
may.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, we discussed this amendment a little bit
yesterday--in fact, considerably yesterday--and I presented most of my
thoughts. I know some other Members on my side are going to come down
and talk about it. This amendment is an incredibly pervasive amendment
and will have a fundamental effect on the Federal role in education. It
will, in my
[[Page S5911]]
opinion, create an atmosphere where the Federal Government is
essentially nationalizing the standards throughout the country for what
education will be.
The way it does this is as follows: It says that every school
district in a State must be comparable, and it is up to the State to
decide that comparability. But if the State doesn't decide the
comparability, then the Federal Government starts to withdraw the
funds. And it also sets up the standards for what must be comparable.
It is a Federal standard--what must be comparable under this amendment.
The standard includes class size, qualifications of teachers by
category of assignments, curriculum, range of courses offered,
instructional material, instructional resources.
You essentially are saying the Federal Government is going to require
comparability--comparability meaning that everybody does it essentially
the same way--throughout the country, or at least throughout every
State, within every State. Logically, the next step is to do it across
the country from State to State.
As I mentioned last night, why should the State of Connecticut be
allowed to spend more on its children than the State of Mississippi?
Should it not all be comparable? Under the logic of this amendment,
that is the next step. Connecticut should send money to Mississippi.
The same amount you spend per child in Connecticut should be spent on
the child in Mississippi.
But more importantly than that, or equally important to that, this
goes to the heart of what I think is the essential of quality education
which is the uniqueness and creativity of the local community to
control how their children are educated. One town in a State is going
to have a certain set of ideas on how education should be provided
versus another town in that State.
Granted, they are all going to have to get their children to a
certain level of ability in the core subject matter--English, math,
science--in order that the children be competitive. But how they get
their children up to that level of competency is left up to the school
district under our bill. The local school district has the flexibility.
And then the ancillary aspects of the school system are left up to the
school districts--ancillary being integral in the sense of foreign
languages, for example, computer science teaching, sports programs,
community outreach programs.
But under this amendment, that would no longer be the case. There
would have to be comparability. Every town and community within the
State would have to do it the same way in all these different areas of
discipline.
So in one part of the State you might have a community that believes,
because of the ethnic makeup of the city or the community, they need
special reading instruction in one language --say, Spanish or Greek--
because they have a large community of immigrants, of people who have
immigrated to our country, and in another part of the State they may
not have that issue but they may have an issue of wanting to get their
children up to speed in the area of the industry which dominates that
region--say, forestry. For example, they might want to have a special
program in how to do proper silviculture. You could not do that
anymore. You could not have those different approaches to education
within the school system. They would all have to be comparable under
this amendment.
It makes absolutely no sense that we as the Federal Government should
set that sort of standard on the States and on the local communities.
Then there are a couple of very specific issues where this amendment
clearly creates a huge threat. The first is charter schools. This
amendment essentially eliminates the capacity to have charter schools
because charter schools, by definition, differ. That is why charter
schools are created. They are different. That is what you have with a
charter school. You get together a group of parents, teachers, and kids
and say: We are going to teach differently than local schools. We are
going to do it with public money. We are talking about public charter
schools here. But we are going to do it differently. Those schools
would be wiped out because you could not be different. You would have
to be comparable. And the magnet schools would be wiped out, schools
that are designed specifically to educate in special subject matters
such as science.
You have these famous science high schools across this country. I
think they have one in New York City called Stuyvesant. They have one
in North Carolina which has been hugely successful. And they have one
right here in the Washington region called Thomas Jefferson. Magnet
schools would be wiped out because they are different. You are not
allowed to be different under the amendment. That is the theme of this
amendment. If you do not have sameness, you do not have fairness.
I have to say I do not believe that is true at all. I think you get
fairness by producing results. You get fairness by producing results,
not by controlling the input but by controlling the output.
If a child goes through the system and learns effectively, then you
have fairness. If a child does not go through the system and learn
effectively, then you do not have fairness.
What this underlying bill does and what the President proposes is to
require that children learn effectively, not require that all children
be taught exactly the same way, because one does not necessarily learn
that way. There are a lot of school systems that feel that way.
Then we have another major issue which is called the collective
bargaining system. In one part of a State, for example, they might have
an agreement with their local teachers union that says: We are going to
have 20 kids in a classroom, but we are going to pay our teachers a lot
more because we think our teachers are able to handle 20 kids and are
good teachers.
In another part of the State, they might have 15 kids in the
classroom and pay their teachers less, or they might work on a
different day schedule, might work on a different structure of their
day, or might work on a different responsibility from area to area
within a State as to what teachers do.
They may have a program where teachers are required to, under their
contract, be involved in extracurricular activities, and in other parts
of the State that might not be the case.
There are different retirement standards from community to community.
Some communities may want their teachers to retire at an earlier age,
and some communities may not. It all depends on the collective
bargaining agreement.
Collective bargaining agreements would be inconsistent with this
amendment. In fact, it would be a Catch-22 for a State that does not
collectively bargain its teachers statewide. I do not know too many
States that do collectively bargain their teachers statewide. Most
States bargain community by community, not State by State. So this
becomes a totally--I do not know if it becomes unenforceable; maybe it
overrides the collective bargaining agreement.
I do not know how the sponsor of the amendment intends to handle that
very significant problem, but it is a big problem because comparability
clearly cannot work if there is a collective bargaining agreement in
one part of the State which presents one significantly different
approach than another part of the State. They then cannot be comparable
and consistent with the collective bargaining agreement.
This amendment is first, obviously, a philosophical anathema to my
view of how to educate in this country, which is we should maintain and
promote local control; we should not undermine local control by
requiring everybody to do everything the same.
That is the key problem with the amendment, but it also has huge
technical implications for the creativity of local communities in the
area of charter schools, magnet schools, different curricular activity
that might be appropriate to one region over another region or
different fiscal activity, structure.
For example, I suspect a school in southern California does not need
the same heating system as a school in northern California, and yet
under this amendment they have to have the same heating system. They
would have to actually have the same heating system because they would
have to have the same resources, the same buildings.
That is the way it is written. It says it has to be comparable. It
says the
[[Page S5912]]
physical facilities have to be comparable. Institutional resources have
to be comparable.
Mr. DODD. Will my colleague yield on this point?
Mr. GREGG. I will be happy to yield.
Mr. DODD. I thank my colleague. This is an important point. Again, I
have great affection for my friend from New Hampshire.
Mr. GREGG. I am yielding for a question.
Mr. DODD. Yielding for a question. As my colleague must be aware--and
this is in the form of a question, Mr. President--we have had the word
``comparable'' on the books regarding school districts for 36 years.
The law has said that within school districts, educational opportunity
must be comparable.
Is it not true, I ask my friend from New Hampshire, that magnet
schools, charter schools, and science schools have all functioned
within school districts with a Federal law that has required or
mandated comparable educational opportunity?
I am not changing that. I am just extending the geography from school
districts to States. I am not applying any new standards from those
that have existed in the law for more than three decades.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I appreciate the Senator from Connecticut
raising that issue because the fact is he has taken the term
``comparability,'' which is today used in an extremely narrow
application and in a very loose enforcement application--in other
words, it applies simply to communities and it applies to teachers
essentially and to curriculum within the teaching community--it has
been extremely loosely applied to communities, and the Senator from
Connecticut has taken that word and has expanded it radically to
essentially the whole State.
The Senator from Connecticut uses as an example, for example, the New
Hampshire Supreme Court decision in this area which did exactly that.
It expanded the issue of funding and equality of funding radically
throughout the whole State so everybody had to do it the same way,
changing the whole system of education within the State of New
Hampshire.
Senator Dodd is suggesting doing the same thing with the word
``comparable'' on a statewide basis and having the Federal Government
come in and set what the term ``comparability'' means now in a much
more precise and mandatory way.
When he uses terms in his amendment such as ``comparability,'' among
other things, shall include:
(i) class size and qualifications of teachers (by category
of assignment, such as regular education, special education,
and bilingual education) and professional staff;
(ii) curriculum, the range of courses offered (including
the opportunity to participate in rigorous courses such as
advanced placement courses), and instructional materials and
instructional resources to ensure that participating children
have the opportunity to achieve to the highest student
performance levels under the State's challenging content and
student performance standards;
(iii) accessibility to technology; and
(iv) the safety of school facilities. . . .
That is getting pretty specific and inclusive and much different from
the way comparability is used in present law. That is a fact.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, if my colleague will yield further, he has
just recited very accurately the provision on page 2 of the amendment
of things under ``Written Assurances'':
A State shall be considered to have met the requirements
[of this amendment] if such State has filed with the
Secretary a written assurance that such State has established
and implemented policies to ensure comparability of services
in certain areas.
If my colleague reads further down to ``class size,'' we do not say
what class size, what qualifications. We all know, and I ask my
colleague this in the form of a question, is there anywhere in this
language where it sets class size, where it sets the standard by the
Federal Government, other than saying the State should have
comparability of those standards without setting the standard?
Mr. GREGG. Absolutely. That is the whole point. If I may reclaim my
time. That is exactly what this does. It says that a State must have a
comparable class size across that State, which means a State such as
California, which is a huge State and which may have variations in
class size depending on what communities have decided is best, both by
negotiating with their teachers union and working with their students,
their parents, and their teachers those States now are not going to be
able to do that any longer, those communities are not going to be able
to do that any longer. They are going to have to set one class size for
the entire State, comparable across the State.
Curriculum: For example, I cannot imagine anything more intrusive
than having the States say unilaterally you have to have a comparable
curriculum on all the different categories of curriculum. There may be
some communities that do not believe they need a curriculum that deals
with some of these core issues. Obviously, on core issues such as math,
science, and English, they are going to have comparable curriculums.
Hopefully, you will not. Maybe they will not. Maybe some States will
let some type of American history be taught in one section and another
type of American history be taught in a different section. American
history should be consistent.
There are other issues. What about languages? They might want to
teach Japanese in San Francisco, but maybe in San Diego they want to
teach Chinese or Spanish.
The comparability language is so pervasive that it basically takes
everything and makes oneness, which was the point of the argument of
the Senator from Connecticut to begin with. I do not see how he can
argue against his own position, which is he believes that in order for
people to be tested and to be held to a standard, then everybody has to
have equal access to the same opportunities of curriculum, class size,
and structure--everything has to be essentially at the same level. That
was his argument, was it not?
Mr. DODD. Will my colleague let me respond without asking a question?
Mr. GREGG. On the Senator's time I will be happy to.
Mr. DODD. I think I am out of time.
Mr. GREGG. Reserving my time, Mr. President, what is the time
situation?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire has 14 minutes,
and the Senator from Connecticut has 3 minutes.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, on my time, the point I am making --in fact,
we debated this yesterday--Is that the words ``comparable'' and
``identical'' are not synonymous. ``Comparable'' allows for great
latitude. We have mandated comparability within school districts.
If you take the school districts of Los Angeles and New York, there
are more students in each of those school districts than in 27
different States. They have found it very workable to have reached
comparable levels of educational opportunity within a very diverse
student population, in the city of New York and the city of Los
Angeles, to cite two examples.
There are plenty of other school districts that have student
populations vastly in excess of the entire student populations of
States that have dealt with this requirement for years.
My point is, States bear a responsibility in educating children. This
bill, and legislation preceding it over the years, has mandated that
teachers, parents, students, school boards, and school superintendents
be accountable and responsible. We are asking it of ourselves at the
Federal Government. My amendment merely says, should we not also ask
our States to be accountable for the equal educational opportunity of
all children? That is all.
We have laid out some basic commonsense standards without mandating
what the standard should specifically. For example, individual science
schools exist in Los Angeles and New York. My colleague mentioned
Stuyvesant High School. When the Federal Government said ``comparable''
in the school district of New York, it did not wipe out Bedford
Stuyvesant High School. That school has done well under a Federal
mandate of comparability.
We are mandating there be better performance, but if we don't say to
States, as much as we are saying to school districts, that there has to
be a comparable educational opportunity, we are setting a standard that
poor communities, rural and urban, will not meet.
In New Hampshire, the supreme court decision was most eloquent in
[[Page S5913]]
pointing out it was wrong to mandate that a small, poor community be
required to increase its property tax fourfold to meet those
responsibilities without the State stepping forward.
The court said that ``[T]o hold otherwise would be to . . . conclude
that it is reasonable, in discharging a State obligation, to tax
property owners in one town or city as much as four times the amount
taxed to others similarly situated in other towns or cities.''
It is an eloquent statement.
In closing, I thank my colleagues from New Jersey and Minnesota for
their support and ask all my colleagues to join me, Senator Biden, and
Senator Reed, in supporting this amendment to provide equal educational
opportunity for all children in a State. This amendment is supported by
the National PTA, the National Education Association, the Council of
the Great City Schools, which represents the largest 50 school
districts in the country, and the Leadership Conference for Civil
Rights, which includes 180 prominent organizations, such as the AARP,
the American Association of University Women, the AFL-CIO, the American
Federation of Teachers, the American Veterans Committee, Catholic
Charities USA, the NAACP, the National Council of Jewish Women, the
National Council of La Raza, the National Urban League, the YMCA, the
YWCA, and others.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. GREGG. I yield the Senator 30 seconds.
Mr. DODD. I am hopeful we can vote on this amendment. We debated
yesterday afternoon, we debated yesterday evening, and this morning. I
am fully prepared to have a vote and go to the next amendment and get
the education bill done. The President wants the education bill to be
passed.
I know my colleague, the chairman of the committee, is anxious to
move this along. I am confident the Republican leader is as well. I am
hopeful this amendment can be considered and voted up or down and that
we move to the next order of business.
I ask the question, Can we vote? We have debated the issue. I am
prepared to debate longer, but I made my case on why I think
accountability and responsibility belong to everyone, including the
State.
I ask my colleague and friend from New Hampshire, is there any chance
we might have a vote on this amendment some time soon?
Mr. GREGG. No.
Mr. DODD. I appreciate the candor of that answer. People from New
Hampshire are noted for their brevity in coming right to the point. He
does not gussy it up with trappings and garnishes.
I thank my colleague.
Mr. GREGG. I thank the Senator from Connecticut for his description.
This amendment goes to the heart of this bill. I don't think the
impact this amendment will have on changing the focus of the
President's proposals on education as negotiated between a variety of
parties involved in the negotiation can be understated.
There was an agreed to set of principles laid down. The basic
philosophy of those principles was that we were going to look at how
the child did, whether the child actually learned more, whether the
low-income child was in a better competitive position relative to peers
and educational success. We were going to allow flexibility of the
local school systems, subject to assuring through assessment standards
and accountability standards that the children were improving.
That was the flow: Focus on the child, flexibility, expect academic
achievement, and subject it to accountability so we knew it was
working. A lot of work went into this concept. The President's ideas
are aggressive and creative and they will take the Federal Government
in a different direction. We will go away from command and control and
go toward output. We will go away from trying to find out how many
books are in a classroom, how big the classroom should be, and how many
teachers are in the classroom to seeing how much a child is learning
and making sure when that child learns they are learning something
relative to them and that they are staying with their peers. We will
give parents more authority and flexibility and capacity to participate
in the education of their children and to have some say when their
children are stuck in schools that are failing.
These are themes that are critical to improving Federal education.
This amendment goes in the exact opposite direction. I used the term
``nationalization'' yesterday. I don't think that is too strong. This
is an attempt to assert a national policy essentially on all school
districts in this country. That is extremely pervasive and requires a
cookie-cutter approach to education and takes away local control.
Therefore, the amendment essentially does fundamental harm which is
irreparable to this bill, in my opinion. That is why we have such
severe reservations.
I yield such time remaining to the Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. FRIST. How much time remains?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 9 minutes remaining.
Mr. FRIST. I will speak and give the floor to the Senator from Maine
when she arrives.
I believe this amendment is one that we absolutely must defeat if we
stick with the principles of flexibility of local control, of shifting
the power of review locally instead of federally. The underlying
principle that is critically important to the BEST bill which the
President has set out in his agenda, discussed often in this bill, is
leaving no child behind.
There are basically two issues that bother me most about this
amendment. No. 1, as I mentioned, the power of review has shifted to
the Federal Government, the Department of Education, to Washington, DC,
and, No. 2, this amendment would broaden the intrusiveness of local
control. Those principles are exactly opposite of what President Bush
has put forward, what most Americans believe, and that is local
control, less Government intrusiveness, and more accountability.
In terms of intent, the amendment is clearly positive. It is
honorable. The intent is that every student receives an equal
education. The problem is the specifics of how that intent is
accomplished--again, more Federal oversight instead of local, and more
intrusiveness.
What does it mean? It means in a State such as Tennessee, if there is
a rural school that has no limited-English-proficient students, they
will still have to have as many bilingual education teachers as a
school, say, in Nashville, TN. That sort of vagueness about what
comparability means ultimately is translated down into something very
specific which simply does not make sense to me when you look within a
State--for example, Tennessee.
How will a State measure comparability of teacher qualifications, of
seniority, of level of education? I ask, regarding the services
identified--teachers, instruction materials, technology service, the
school safety services, the bilingual education services--how do we
know those are the absolute answers to all students? We simply do not.
I believe the only strings attached to Federal dollars should be those
that insist on demonstrable results.
I see the Senator from Maine has arrived. We only have about 4
minutes left, so I will yield to her. But let me just close and say
instead of funding institutions, instead of concentrating on services
and inputs, instead of monitoring progress versus regulations, we
absolutely must focus on student achievement--something which this
amendment does not do. It aggravates the situation and moves in the
opposite direction.
I yield the floor.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I am happy to ask consent for 10 minutes
evenly divided, if that is agreeable. This is a very important
amendment. Would that be sufficient time? I ask for 10 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The
Senator from Maine.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, the Senator from Connecticut is such a
strong advocate for our Nation's children. I have enjoyed working with
him on so many issues. But as much as I admire him and share his
commitment, I do rise in opposition to the amendment of Senator Dodd.
This amendment, although it is very well intentioned, is contrary to
the goal of this education reform bill which is to give more
flexibility to local schools and to States while holding them
accountable for what really
[[Page S5914]]
counts, and that is student achievement, ensuring that every child is
learning, that no child is left behind.
Comparability of services is a concept that was created to make sure
that title I schools get services comparable to those received in
nontitle I schools. But the amendment of the Senator from Connecticut
simply goes too far. It would, for example, require States to ensure
comparability among schools in class size, in qualifications of
teachers by category of assignments such as regular education, special
education, bilingual education. It would mandate the same courses be
offered, the range of courses, and how rigorous they are. It is
extraordinarily prescriptive. It really turns on its head the whole
idea of leaving to States and local communities the issues of
curriculum design and teacher qualifications.
For example, we know very well the needs of schools vary from
community to community. My brother, Sam Collins, is chair of the school
board in Caribou, ME, my hometown. Through his efforts and efforts of
other local leaders, the school system has established a bilingual
education program in the elementary schools. It is a wonderful program.
But under the Dodd amendment, that program would have to exist in every
school in Maine. That is just not practical.
Similarly, in Portland, ME, we have a large number of students with
limited English proficiency. That means there is a great need for ESL
teachers and bilingual teachers in that school system. But in other
more rural parts of Maine that need simply doesn't exist.
This amendment simply is impractical. It is just not workable, in
addition to being contrary to the concept of allowing those who know
our students best--our local school boards, our teachers, our parents,
our principals, our superintendents of schools--to design the
curriculum and provide the courses and other needs for a local school.
Schools differ. One school may need a gifted and talented program;
another may need to improve its library; still another may need to
establish an ESL program. In short, one size does not fit all. Yet that
is the implication and the premise of the amendment of the Senator from
Connecticut.
This amendment would shift the power away from local communities and
local school boards to Washington. We want to, instead, empower local
communities to make the right decisions and then, very importantly,
hold them accountable for results. We want to change the focus from
paperwork and process and regulation and, instead, focus on what really
matters, and that is ensuring that every child in America gets the very
best education possible.
We want to do that by holding schools and States accountable, not by
telling them what courses they need to have, not by prescribing every
rule, every regulation. Let's trust our teachers and our local school
board members. Let's trust the local teachers and superintendents. They
know best what is needed.
I urge opposition to the amendment of my colleague, Senator Dodd.
Again, he is a strong advocate for our Nation's schools, and I have
enjoyed working with him, but I believe his amendment goes too far and
is misguided.
I retain the remainder of our time for our side, and I yield the
floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from
Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, as we return to debate on the Dodd-Biden
amendment, I want to clarify for Members just what the amendment does
and add two points that were not made yesterday.
The amendment conditions title I state administration funds--1
percent of total state funds--on a written assurance that
``comparable,'' not identical, essential education services, such as
teacher quality and access to technology, are provided across
districts. States have up to four years to comply. If a state fails to
send a simple written assurance to the Secretary, their administrative
funds are withheld. Once a state sends a written assurance, any
previously withheld funds are returned. All a state has to do is file a
piece of paper. I think the amendment is too modest frankly in not
allowing the Secretary to engage in a more searching inquiry into
whether the written assurance actually reflects a comparable education
being offered.
This amendment is still groundbreaking, however. Since 1965, we have
required individual school districts to provide a written assurance
that they are offering a comparable regular education in title I and
non-title I schools. We have never asked states to assure that
comparable services are provided among schools in different school
districts. This amendment does. Whereas all title I program funds are
conditioned on local compliance currently, only title I state
administration are conditioned under the Dodd-Biden amendment.
There are two additional points, which were not raised yesterday,
that I would like to add. First, state after state repeatedly has found
itself back in state court because of its failure to provide a
comparable educational opportunity across districts. A State Supreme
Court orders improvement. Some improvement is made. But then progress
quickly erodes. And the parents of poor children have to go back to
court. Since 1968, there have been five iterations of the Serrano case
in California, six of the Abbott case in New Jersey, and five of the
Edgewood case in Texas.
This amendment is significant in not just requiring states to provide
a comparable opportunity, but in actually reaching into the state's
federal pocketbook if it resists. Maybe when there are federal
financial consequences for state resistance to State supreme courts,
states will do a better job of complying with judicial orders.
Second, the Senator from New Hampshire yesterday repeated an old and
outdated argument that ``education is not a formula where more dollars
equal better results.'' We have known for a long time though that money
well spend does make a difference. In fact, the last time we
reauthorized ESEA, we had a series of hearings on this issue.
We heard as far back as 1993, that increased education spending
targeted to critical areas like teacher quality have a profound effect
on student achievement. This is what we heard from Dr. Ronald Ferguson
of Harvard University after studying teacher quality and student
assessment results in every Texas school district.
A measure of teachers' literacy skills explains roughly 25
percent of the variation among Texas school districts in
students' average reading and math scores on statewide
standardized exams. . . . Better literacy skills among
teachers, fewer large classes, and more teachers with five or
more years experience all predict better [test] scores.
Deep down every United States Senator knows what every parent and
teacher knows--that resources matter in education. If resources didn't
matter, we wouldn't mind sending our children and grandchildren to the
poorest schools. If resources didn't matter, people wouldn't fight
``Robin Hood'' plans that equalize spending by taking from the wealthy
districts to give to the poor. Now I don't think we should equalize
spending down by taking money from some communities and giving it to
others. I think we should equalize up by sending more targeted
education resources to the communities that are deprived. I hope the
President and the other side will join us in that effort to boost
education spending overall.
Every child deserves a fair chance.
I am rather amazed at these statements that are made on the floor
about how this undermines the President's initiatives, because to the
contrary, this does not interfere with any of the President's
initiatives. I think it gives much more life to the President's
initiative, because Senator Dodd's amendment is going to encourage
States to provide additional focus and attention to the most needy
students in the State. That is completely consistent with what the
President has stated.
I am rather surprised, frankly, by the reaction of our Republican
friends because this has been on a list of amendments to be considered
for 3 weeks. This is the first amendment about which I have heard our
Republican friends indicate we will not get a vote on it. I do not know
what kind of signal that sends. It has been on the list for 3 weeks,
and 5 minutes ago I heard for the first time the spokesperson for the
Republican Party say we are not going to vote on it.
[[Page S5915]]
I do not know what kind of message that sends in our attempt to try
to move this legislation, but it certainly is not a useful one or a
constructive one.
I ask my friends on the other side to reread the language of the
amendment. It says:
A State shall be considered to have met the requirements .
. . if such State has filed with the Secretary a written
assurance that such State has established and implemented
policies to ensure comparability among schools . . . .
All they have to do is file the statement. This is not like the
existing legislation that requires the Secretary to have approval on
State tests. That is real power. Or that the Secretary has to approve
the State's findings in terms of standards. That is real power. Or the
fact the Secretary will make a judgment on a State's application for
Straight A's authority. That is real power. Those are decisions that
will be made here in Washington.
But to confuse that kind of authority and power with the language
here is most unfortunate. Why are they so excited about this? I can't
understand why they are so excited so early in the morning about this
language? All this amendment says is that States have to file a written
assurance. That's it. That's compliance.
I reiterate that we have had hearings on this issue in the past. We
had days of hearings on school finance. The record of those hearings is
printed in Senate 103-254. This is not a new concept. This is not a new
idea. We have accepted the concept of comparability at the local
levels. All this is doing is saying what I think the President wants to
do; that is, he wants accountability statewide.
We want accountability for the children so they are going to work
hard and study hard. We want accountability for the teachers to make
sure we are going to have teachers who are going to get professional
development. We want accountability for States in developing standards,
and accountability that the States are going to develop tests that are
going to be high-quality tests.
We have accountability here in the Congress to try to afford the
resources to be able to help these children.
All the Senator from Connecticut is saying is let's have
accountability. Let's have accountability for the States as well to be
a part of a team. Most parents would want their children to learn.
Learning should be a partnership with the local, State, and the Federal
response in areas of the neediest children in this country.
I think this enhances the President's initiative. This carries it to
an additional level. I hope he would be on the phone calling our
friends and saying let's have a unanimous, favorable vote for this
particular provision.
I yield the remaining time to the Senator from Connecticut.
Amendment No. 459, As Further Modified
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, first of all, I send a modification of my
amendment to the desk and ask for its consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The amendment is so
modified.
The amendment (No. 459), as further modified, is as follows:
On page 135, between lines 9 and 10, insert the following:
(d) Section 1120A (20 U.S.C. 6322) is amended by inserting
the following after subsection (d):
``(e) Comparability of Services.--
``(1) In general.--(A) A State that receives funds under
this part shall provide services in schools receiving funds
under this part that, taken as a whole, are at least
comparable to services in schools that are not receiving
funds under this part.
``(B) A State shall meet the requirements of subparagraph
(A) on a school-by-school basis.
``(2) Written assurance.--(A) A State shall be considered
to have met the requirements of paragraph (1) if such State
has filed with the Secretary a written assurance that such
State has established and implemented policies to ensure
comparability among schools.
``(B) A State need not include unpredictable changes in
student enrollment or personnel assignments that occur after
the beginning of a school year in determining comparability
of services under this subsection.
``(3) Construction.--Nothing in this subsection shall be
construed to require a jurisdiction to increase its property
tax or other tax rates.
``(4) Effective date.--A State shall comply with the
requirements of this subsection by not later than the
beginning of the 2005-2006 school year.
``(5) Waivers.--
``(A) In general.--A State may request, and the Secretary
may grant, a waiver of the requirements of this subsection
for a period of up to 2 years for exceptional circumstances,
such as a precipitous decrease in State revenues or other
circumstances that the Secretary deems exceptional that
prevent a State from complying with the requirements of this
paragraph.
``(B) Contents of waiver request.--A State that requests a
waiver under subparagraph (A) shall include in the request--
``(i) a description of the exceptional circumstances that
prevent the State from complying with the requirements of
this subsection; and
``(ii) a plan that details the manner in which the State
will comply with such requirements by the end of the waiver
period.
``(6) Technical assistance.--The Secretary shall, upon the
request of a State and regardless of whether the State has
requested a waiver under paragraph (5), provide technical
assistance to the State concerning compliance with the
requirements of this subsection.
``(7) Sanctions.--If a State fails to comply with the
requirements of this subsection, the Secretary shall withhold
funds for State administration until such time as the
Secretary determines that the State is in compliance with
this subsection.''
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I discussed the amendment with my good
friend from New Hampshire. The way I have dealt with the modification
is to take out the section that speaks to the specific kinds of
comparability issues such as class size, teachers, and the like. My
intention was not to suggest we ought to have identical class size
standards set by the Federal Government or to mandate how States should
provide equal educational opportunity, but rather to ensure that they
do provide it. Therefore, I have left the language basically as it has
been for 36 years when dealing with school districts; that is, achieve
comparability of educational opportunities, except to apply it to
States, as well.
As I pointed out, we have school districts in this country that have
student populations in excess of the population of 27 States, and they
have been able to deal with comparability, without, to use the example
that concerned my friend from New Hampshire, infringing upon charter
schools or magnet schools.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional
minute.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the request be
modified to add 1 additional minute on our side.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I appreciate the comments of my friend and
colleague from Massachusetts on this issue. He makes the point very
clearly. This is not radical. We are asking for accountability and
responsibility by everybody when it comes to education. We are assuming
it here at the Federal level with the underlying bill. We are requiring
it of young children in the third grade and on, their parents,
teachers, schools, and school boards. I am only saying that States must
be part of this equation. That is all this is--to provide for
comparable educational opportunity at the State level as we have
required for 36 years at a district level. We leave to the Secretary
the discretion about how much to withhold administrative funds--not
funds to children--if necessary. For States to provide assurances that
they are moving to achieve comparability is not radical. That is common
sense. We are asking to test everybody in America. We ought to ask the
States to take a little test as well.
I thank my colleagues.
I ask for the yeas and nays on this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is not a sufficient second.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I withdraw my request for the nays and yeas.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, let me summarize the problem. I appreciate
the fact that the Senator from Connecticut has modified his amendment.
[[Page S5916]]
I appreciate him doing that and taking out some of the language that is
most onerous in the amendment. But the amendment still accomplishes
essentially the same thing, which is creating a Federal standard
requiring every State to set up comparability standards. There are a
lot of States in this country and a lot of communities in this country
which do not agree that comparability is appropriate; that believe the
States should have flexibility from community to community to decide
how they operate their school system. Local control is the essence of
education. If a State decides it wants comparability, or its supreme
court decides that, or the State legislature decides that, fine. That
is certainly their responsibility and their right. They operate school
systems. They pay for 97 percent of the school systems, and they should
be able to do that. They do that. The Supreme Court did that in the
area of funding. But it is not the role of the Federal Government to
come in after paying 6 percent of the cost of the school system and say
to States that every State has to have comparability within their
State. It is a huge intrusion of the Federal role in the role of
education.
For that reason, it goes, as I mentioned earlier, directly in the
opposite direction from what the theme of this bill is. I am not going
to reiterate that because I just said it 10 or 15 minutes ago. But that
is the problem of the amendment. It is incredibly intrusive, and it
goes in the direct opposite direction from where this bill is going.
That is why we on our side strongly oppose it and believe it is
inconsistent with the agreement that was reached. We need to think
about it a little bit longer before we decide how we are going to
dispose of it.
I appreciate the Senator from Connecticut withdrawing his request for
the yeas and nays. Maybe as we move down the road, we can figure out a
way to more appropriately handle this amendment.
I yield the remainder of our time on this amendment.
Amendment Nos. 356, 401, 434, 513 as modified, 642, 643 as modified,
363 as modified, 638 as modified, 354 as modified, 418 as modified, and
633 as modified En Bloc, to Amendment no. 358
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, we are now going to go to the Nelson-
Carnahan amendment. But today I am happy to report that we have another
package of cleared amendments. Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that
it be in order for these amendments to be considered en bloc, and any
modification, where applicable, be agreed to, the amendments be agreed
to, en bloc, and the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, en
bloc.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendments (Nos. 356, 401, 434, 513 as modified, 642, 643 as
modified, 363 as modified, 638 as modified, 354 as modified, 418 as
modified, and 633 as modified) were agreed to en bloc as follows:
amendment no. 356
(Purpose: To promote financial education)
On page 619, line 6, strike ``and''.
On page 619, line 7, strike the period and insert ``;
and''.
On page 619, between lines 7 and 8, insert the following:
``(O) activities to promote consumer, economic, and
personal finance education, such as disseminating and
encouraging the use of the best practices for teaching the
basic principles of economics and promoting the concept of
achieving financial literacy through the teaching of personal
financial management skills (including the basic principles
involved in earning, spending, saving, and investing).
____
amendment no. 401
(Purpose: To assist parents in becoming active participants in the
education of their children)
On page 479, strike line 8 and insert the following:
for limited English proficient students, and to assist
parents to become active participants in the education of
their children.
____
amendment no. 513, as modified
(Purpose: To expand the permissible uses of funds)
On page 318, strike lines 22 through 25, and insert the
following:
``(5) Developing and implementing effective mechanisms to
assist local education agencies and schools in effectively
recruiting and retaining highly qualified teachers and
principals, and in cases in which a State deems appropriate,
pupil services personnel.
On page 319, between lines 19 and 20, insert the following:
``(12) Providing professional development for teachers and
pupil services personnel.
On page 326, strike lines 9 through 11 and insert the
following:
``(3) Providing teachers, principals, and, in cases in
which a local education agency deems appropriate, pupil
services personnel with opportunities for professional
development through institutions of higher education.
On page 327, between lines 10 and 11, insert the following:
``(7) Developing and implementing mechanisms to assist
schools in effectively recruiting and retaining highly
qualified teachers and principals, and, in cases in which a
local education agency deems appropriate, pupil services
personnel.
On page 370, strike lines 12 through 18, and insert the
following:
``(3) acquiring connectivity linkages, resources, and
services, including the acquisition of hardware and software,
for use by teachers, students, academic counselors, and
school library media personnel in the classroom, in academic
and college counseling centers, or in school library media
centers, in order to improve student academic achievement and
student performance;''.
____
amendment no. 642
(Purpose: To provide for Indian education)
On page 178, between lines 19 and 20, insert the following:
``(4) Reservation from appropriations.--From the amounts
appropriated under section 1002(b)(2) to carry out this
subpart for a fiscal year, the Secretary shall--
``(A) reserve \1/2\ of 1 percent for allotments for the
Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa and the Commonwealth of
the Northern Mariana Islands, to be distributed among these
outlying areas on the basis of their relative need, as
determined by the Secretary in accordance with the purposes
of this subpart; and
``(B) reserve \1/2\ of 1 percent for allotments for the
Secretary of the Interior for programs under this subpart in
schools operated or funded by the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
On page 272, line 10, strike ``and the Republic of Palau''
and insert ``Republic of Palau, and Bureau of Indian Affairs
for purposes of serving schools funded by the Bureau''.
On page 776, line 10, insert before the semicolon the
following: ``or, in the case of a Bureau of Indian Affairs
funded school, by the Secretary of the Interior''
On page 807, strike lines 1 through 18.
On page 808, strike lines 15 and 16.
____
amendment no. 434 to amendment no. 358
(Purpose: To revise the definition of parental involvement)
On page 12, strike lines 23 through 24.
On page 13 strike lines 1 through 2, and insert the
following:
``(23) Parental involvement.--The term `parental
involvement' means the participation of parents in regular,
two-way, and meaningful communication, including ensuring--
``(A) that parenting skills are promoted and supported:
``(B) that parents play an integral role in assisting
student learning;
``(C) that parents are welcome in the schools;
``(D) that parents are included in decision-making and
advisory committees; and
``(E) the carrying out of other activities described in
section 1118.
____
AMENDMENT NO. 643, As Modified
(Purpose: To provide rural schools with options during the
reconstitution process)
On page 99, between line 22 and 23, Title I, Sec. 1116
(8)(B), is amended by inserting:
(1) Special Rule.--Rural local educational agencies, as
described in Sec. 5231(b) may apply to the Secretary for a
waiver of the requirements under this sub-paragraph provided
that they submit to the Secretary an alternative plan for
making significant changes to improve student performance in
the school, such as an academically-focused after school
programs for all students, changing school administration or
implementing a research-based, proven-effective, whole-school
reform program. The Secretary shall approve or reject an
application for a waiver submitted under this rule within 30
days of the submission of information required by the
Secretary to apply for the waiver. If the Secretary fails to
make a determination with respect to the waiver application
within 30 days, the application shall be treated as having
been accepted by the Secretary.
____
AMENDMENT NO. 363, AS MODIFIED
(Purpose: To enable local educational agencies to extend the amount of
educational time spent in schools, including enabling the agencies to
extend the length of the school year to 210 days)
On page 67, line 18, strike ``and''.
On page 67, line 21, strike all after ``1118'' and insert
``; and''.
On page 67, between lines 21 and 22, insert the following:
``(11) where appropriate, a description of how the local
educational agency will use funds under this part to support
school year extension programs under section 1120C for low-
performing schools.'';
On page 161, between lines 9 and 10, insert the following:
[[Page S5917]]
SEC. 120D. SCHOOL YEAR EXTENSION ACTIVITIES.
Subpart 1 of part A of title I (20 U.S.C. 6311 et seq.) is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``SEC. 1120C. SCHOOL YEAR EXTENSION ACTIVITIES.
``(b) Use of Funds.--
``(1) In general.--A local educational agency may use funds
received under this part to--
``(A) to extend the length of the school year to 210 days;
``(C) conduct outreach to and consult with community
members, including parents, students, and other stakeholders
to develop a plan to extend learning time within or beyond
the school day or year; and
``(D) research, develop, and implement strategies,
including changes in curriculum and instruction.
``(c) Application.--A local educational agency desiring to
use funds under this section shall submit an application to
the State educational agency at such time, in such manner,
and accompanied by such information as the agency may
require. Each application shall describe--
``(1) the activities to be carried out under this section;
``(2) any study or other information-gathering project for
which funds will be used;
``(3) the strategies and methods the applicant will use to
enrich and extend learning time for all students and to
maximize high quality instruction in the core academic areas
during the school day, such as block scheduling, team
teaching, longer school days or years, and extending learning
time through new distance-learning technologies;
``(4) the strategies and methods the applicant will use,
including changes in curriculum and instruction, to challenge
and engage students and to maximize the productiveness of
common core learning time, as well as the total time students
spend in school and in school-related enrichment activities;
``(5) the strategies and methods the applicant intends to
employ to provide continuing financial support for the
implementation of any extended school day or school year;
``(6) with respect to any application to carry out
activities described in subsection (b)(1)(A), a description
of any feasibility or other studies demonstrating the
sustainability of a longer school year;
``(7) the extent of involvement of teachers and other
school personnel in investigating, designing, implementing
and sustaining the activities assisted under this section;
``(8) the process to be used for involving parents and
other stakeholders in the development and implementation of
the activities assistance under this section;
``(9) any cooperation or collaboration among public housing
authorities, libraries, businesses, museums, community-based
organizations, and other community groups and organizations
to extend engaging, high-quality, standards-based learning
time outside of the school day or year, at the school or at
some other site;
``(10) the training and professional development activities
that will be offered to teachers and others involved in the
activities assisted under this section;
``(11) the goals and objectives of the activities assisted
under this section, including a description of how such
activities will assist all students to reach State standards;
``(12) the methods by which the applicant will assess
progress in meeting such goals and objectives; and
``(13) how the applicant will use funds provided under this
section in coordination with funds provided under other
Federal laws.''
____
AMENDMENT NO. 638, AS MODIFIED
(Purpose: To provide for an annual report to Congress)
On page 69, between lines 9 and 10, insert the following:
``(6) Report to congress.--The Secretary shall report
annually to Congress--
``(A) beginning with school year 2001-2002, information on
the State's progress in developing and implementing the
assessments described in subsection (b)(3);
``(B) beginning not later than school year 2004-2005,
information on the achievement of students on the assessments
described in subsection (b)(3), including the disaggregated
results for the categories of students described in
subsection (b)(2)(B)(v)(II); and
``(D) in any year before the States begin to provide the
information described in paragraph (B) to the Secretary,
information on the results of student assessments (including
disaggregated results) required under this section.
____
AMENDMENT NO. 354 AS MODIFIED
(Purpose: To establish a study on finance disparities and the effects
of equalization on student performance)
On page 173, between lines 4 and 5, insert the following:
(f) Study, Evaluation and Report of School Finance
Equalization.--The Secretary shall conduct a study to
evaluate and report to the Congress on the degree of
disparity in expenditures per pupil among LEAs within and
across each of the fifty states and the District of Columbia.
The Secretary shall also analyze the trends in State school
finance legislation and judicial action requiring that states
equalize resources. The Secretary shall evaluate and report
to the Congress whether or not it can be determined if these
actions have resulted in an improvement in student
performance.
In preparing this report, the Secretary may also consider
the following: various measures of determining disparity; the
relationship between education expenditures and student
performance; the effect of Federal education assistance
programs on the equalization of school finance resources; and
the effects of school finance equalization on local and state
tax burdens.
Such report shall be submitted to the Congress not later
than one year after the date of enactment of the Better
Education for Students and Teachers Act.
____
AMENDMENT NO. 418 as modified
(Purpose: Protection of Pupil Rights)
On page 64, between lines 2 and 3, insert the following:
``(F) Protection of pupil rights.--In meeting the
requirements of this section, States, local educational
agencies, and schools shall comply with the provisions of
Section 445 of the General Education Provisions Act.''
____
AMENDMENT NO. 633 AS modified
(Purpose: To ensure that grant funds are available for use to enhance
educators' knowledge in the use of computer related technology to
enhance student learning)
On page 328, line 21, insert before the semicolon the
following: ``, including the use of computer related
technology to enhance student learning''.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, for the information of the Senate, these
amendments are as follows: Corzine No. 356; Reed, 401; Reed, 434;
Voinovich, 513; Enzi, 642; Enzi/Collings/Murray, 643; Torricelli, 363;
Nelson of Florida, 638; Hatch, 354; Hatch, 418; and Levin, 633.
We are continuing to process these amendments. I am thankful and
grateful to our friends and colleagues on the other side for their help
and their good work in making all of this possible.
I yield the floor.
Amendment No. 385 to Amendment No. 358
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now
proceed to the consideration of amendment No. 385, on which there will
be 60 minutes of debate to be equally divided and controlled.
The clerk will report.
The senior assistant bill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Missouri [Mrs. Carnahan], for herself and
Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, proposes an amendment numbered 385.
Mrs. CARNAHAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
AMENDMENT NO. 385
(Purpose: To limit the application of assessment requirements based on
the costs to the State in administering such assessments)
On page 51, between lines 15 and 16, insert the following:
``(4) Assessments not required.--
``(A) In general.--A State shall not be required to conduct
any assessments under paragraph (3) in any school year if--
``(i) the assessments are not otherwise required under
Federal law on the day preceding the date of enactment of the
Better Education for Students and Teachers Act; and
``(ii) the amount made available to the State under section
6403(a) for use in the school year involved for such
assessments is less than 100 percent of the costs to the
State of administering such assessments in the previous
school year, or if such assessments were not administered in
the previous school year (in accordance with this
subparagraph), in the most recent school year in which such
assessments were administered.
``(B) Determination of total costs.--For purposes of making
the determination required under subparagraph (A)(ii), the
Secretary shall, not later than March 15 of each year,
publish in the Federal Register a description of the total
costs of developing and implementing the assessments required
under the amendments made by the Better Education for
Students and Teachers Act for the school year involved based
on information submitted by the States, as required by the
Secretary. Such total costs may include costs related to
field testing, administration (including the printing of
testing materials and reporting processes), and staff time.
The Secretary shall include in any such publication a
justification with respect to any category of costs submitted
by a State that is excluded by the Secretary from the
estimated total cost.
``(C) 2005-2006 school year.--Not later than March 15,
2005, the Secretary shall make the publication required under
subparagraph (B) with respect to the 2005-2006 school year.
``(D) Report.--The Secretary annually report the
information published under subparagraph (B) to the Committee
on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions and the Committee
on Appropriations of the Senate and the Committee on
Education and the Workforce and Committee on Appropriations
of the House of Representatives.
[[Page S5918]]
On page 59, line 21, after the period add the following:
``No funds shall be withheld under this subsection for any
school year in which the Secretary determines that a State
has received, under section 6403(a), less than 100 percent of
the costs to the State of designing standards and developing
and administering assessments for measuring and monitoring
adequate yearly progress under this section. The Secretary
shall determine the reasonable costs of designing,
developing, and administering standards and assessments based
on information submitted by the States, as required by the
Secretary, except that the Secretary shall provide a written
explanation of any category of costs that excluded from the
Secretary's calculations.''.
On page 778, after line 21, add the following:
``(d) Miscellaneous Provision.--Notwithstanding subsection
(a)(3), there is authorized to be appropriated to carry out
subsection (a)(1), such sums as may be necessary for fiscal
year 2002 and for each of the 6 succeeding fiscal years.''.
Mrs. CARNAHAN. Mr. President, we must never let any of our children
slip through the cracks of the education system. That's why a yardstick
of performance is needed. It's why rigorous accountability and
increased testing have become cornerstones of the education debate. I
strongly support testing to help us measure the progress of our
Nation's students.
Missouri is at the forefront of using testing to drive education
reform. Since 1993, Missouri educators have worked hard to shape a
testing structure called the Missouri Assessment Program.
These tests measure progress in math, communication arts, science,
and social studies as well as a variety of skills. Each of the four
core subject areas is tested in three grade levels. In each of these
grade levels, every child is tested.
I commend Missouri educators on creating a superb testing instrument.
Each child's development is gauged on an individual, case-by-case
basis as well as in relation to other students across the Nation.
By contrast, under President Bush's plan, States would be required to
test every child annually in grades 3-8.
In Missouri, this would require tremendous cost.
In communication arts, for example--which tests reading, as well as
writing ability, punctuation, spelling, and thought organization--
Missouri currently tests kids in grades 3, 7, and 11. Under the new
requirement, the State would have to develop new tests for grades 4, 5,
6, and 8. The Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
estimates that initial development costs would be approximately $3.5
million and ongoing development costs would be an additional $1.2
million per year.
About another $5 million would be required to develop new math tests,
and a new science test would be even more expensive. These estimates do
not even include the costs of implementing, scoring, and analyzing
these tests. In the end, the annual costs for Missouri may exceed $15
million per year.
The ESEA legislation that we are now debating, however, would provide
for the entire Nation $400 million per year for developing and
implementing the new tests. But the truth is that we don't know exactly
how much the new tests will cost.
The National Association of State Boards of Education has estimated
the total national costs to be between $2.7 billion and $7 billion over
7 years.
The reality is that when it comes to the cost of these new tests, we
are looking at a huge question mark. And we face the possibility that
there could be a tremendous gap between funding available for these new
tests and funding needed. This uncertainty places an unfair burden on
our local districts and schools.
Last month, I joined my Senate colleagues in supporting full funding
for the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, or IDEA.
As did my colleagues, I heeded the cry of local educators and parents
who told us that Congress had not fulfilled its promise to fund 420
percent of IDEA. They told us that this failure had drained local
districts of already scarce funds. They told us that these
circumstances hurt the students in our schools. After years of delay,
we raised our collective voice to recognize that Congress cannot place
unfunded mandates on our schools.
Now, numerous letters have been pouring into my office from
superintendents across Missouri, voicing concern about the cost of the
new tests. Let me share some of them with you.
One is from David Legaard, the superintendent in Smithville, who
wrote:
The Smithville R-II School District supports your efforts.
Our school district cannot afford to pay for mandated federal
testing programs.
Don Lawrence, the superintendent in Savannah, MO, wrote:
Rest assured the local school districts in the state of
Missouri do not have access to additional funds to pay for
national school testing.
We should not make the same mistake with testing as we did with IDEA.
We simply cannot put our State and local governments in the position of
draining local resources to pay for new, unfunded Federal requirements.
The amendment I am offering today with my colleague, Senator Ben
Nelson, will ensure that our schools don't bear an unfair burden. The
idea behind this amendment is straightforward: if new tests are
required by the Federal Government, they should be paid for by the
Federal Government. States would not be obligated to give the tests in
any year that the Federal Government fails to provide 100 percent of
the funding.
The Carnahan-Nelson amendment builds on the Jeffords amendment, which
passed by a 93-7 margin. I was pleased to support that amendment, but
in our view it did not provide sufficient protection to State
governments and local educators.
The Jeffords amendment provides that States must conduct the new
tests so long as the Federal Government provides $400 million for
design and implementation costs. The problem is, what happens if the
cost is twice that amount, or ten times that amount, as some groups are
estimating? Who will pick up the additional costs?
The answer is that our local schools, supported by local tax dollars,
will have to pick up the tab for the federally mandated tests. We think
that is the wrong policy.
Some have argued that this is an ``antitesting'' amendment because it
links a State's obligation to conduct the new tests with full Federal
funding.
The bill before the Senate already links a State's obligation to test
to Federal funding. Our amendment merely changes the amount of Federal
funding required from the arbitrary figure of $400 million to 100
percent of the true cost of testing.
Our schools should not have to forego the purchase of textbooks, or
increases in teachers' salaries, or the renovation of classrooms so
that they can put in place the new tests. If the Federal Government is
going to impose this new requirement, the Federal Government should
provide the resources to do it.
In addition, our amendment covers science tests, which the current
bill does not.
And, our amendment requires the Secretary of Education to calculate
the total costs of complying with the testing mandate so legislators
know whether the Federal Government is meeting its obligation to our
local schools.
The Governor of Missouri, Bob Holden, has strongly endorsed the
Eliminate Unfunded Mandates amendment. He comments:
I feel strongly that implementing new testing requirements
without the adequate funds in place would be a disservice to
the children in Missouri and across the nation . . . If the
Federal Government is going to require new testing measures,
then the Federal Government should pay 100 percent of all
costs.
Governor Holden's sentiment is echoed in an endorsement letter from
the Democratic Governors' Association, which notes that the Carnahan-
Nelson amendment would help ``fulfill [a] historic commitment to
America's children.''
Many Senators have extolled the virtues of testing during this
debate. Many have spoken in favor of local control over education
funds. If you want to ensure that testing will take place and that our
local schools can spend their own dollars on their own priorities, then
you should vote for the Carnahan-Nelson amendment.
I am pleased that Senator Baucus and Senator Hollings support this
amendment. I ask unanimous consent that they be added as cosponsors.
There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[[Page S5919]]
Office of the Governor,
State of Missouri,
Jefferson City, MO, May 20, 2001.
Dear Members of the Senate: I write in strong support of
the Carnahan-Nelson amendment to the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act (ESEA).
This amendment would ensure that the federal government
meets its commitment to states by fully funding the cost of
the new ESEA testing requirements. If the federal government
did not meet this commitment, states would be released from
the obligation to implement the new requirements. The
amendment also would require the Secretary of Education to
commission and annual report on testing costs.
I feel strongly that implementing new testing requirements
without the adequate funds in place would be a disservice to
the children in Missouri and across the nation. Under these
circumstances, state and local governments would be forced to
choose between implementing the new testing requirements and
cutting costs in other vital education programs. We simply
cannot place our schools in the position of choosing between
hiring new teachers, purchasing new textbooks, renovating
schools and implementing the new tests. If the federal
government is going to require new testing measures, then the
federal government should pay 100% of all additional costs.
This point is especially germane in states that have
already implemented strong testing programs. I am proud to
note that Missouri has already made great strides in relation
to testing and accountability. The Missouri Assessment
Program, which assesses students in six subject areas, is the
result of painstaking efforts on the part of Missouri
educators. I believe that this testing program makes Missouri
a leader in the nation in terms of effective testing.
Thank you for your attention to this critical matter, and I
encourage you to vote in favor of the Carnahan-Nelson
amendment. I look forward to working hand-in-hand with
Congress and the Administration to ensure that our state
testing systems are as effective as possible and that we do
our utmost to support the education of our nation's children.
Sincerely,
Bob Holden,
Governor.
____
Democratic Governor's Association,
Washingotn, DC, May 22, 2001.
Hon. Jean Carnahan,
U.S. Senate,
Washingotn, DC.
Dear Senator Carnahan: On behalf of the nation's Democratic
Governors, I am writing in support of the amendment being
offered by Senators Carnahan and Nelson to S. 1, the Better
Education for Students and Teachers Act (BEST). This
amendment would ensure that the federal government meets its
commitment to states by fully funding the cost of the new
Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) testing
requirements.
The amendment would replace the $400 million cap authorized
for FY 2002 for developing and implementing tests, in the
underlying bill, instead requiring the federal government to
pay 100% of all state testing costs not currently required
under federal law. If the federal government does not meet
this commitment, states would be released from the obligation
to implement the new testing requirements. The amendment
would also require the Secretary of Education to annually
calculate the total costs of testing.
In addition, the amendment would add a protection that
would prohibit the federal government from sanctioning a
state for falling behind schedule in designing and
implementing tests if the federal government has not provided
full funding.
While we are pleased to support the Carnahan/Nelson
amendment, we are hopeful that any final version of
legislation to reauthorize the ESEA will apply a funding
trigger more broadly, specifically to include Title I. This
is the main source of federal assistance for disadvantaged
students and the federal government needs to back its efforts
to strengthen accountability with adequate new investment.
We would also prefer that final legislation link federal
funding accountability to consequences imposed on states and
local schools unable to meet proposed annual performance
measures, such as fiscal sanctions and school reorganization.
Relieving states from the cost of implementing new tests does
not alter the mandated levels of improvement in student
performance.
Democratic Governors urge Congress to fulfill the historic
commitment to America's children that the BEST Act represents
by fully funding authorized levels of IDEA, Title I, and
teacher quality, as well as for testing. We believe that the
Carnahan-Nelson amendment helps to ensure this, and we urge
that the Senate adopt the amendment.
Sincerely,
Gov. Tom Vilsack,
State of Iowa,
DGA Vice-Chair of Policy.
Mrs. CARNAHAN. I am happy to yield the floor for the Senator from
Nebraska to make further comments.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, I rise today to ask the
Senate's support for the Carnahan-Nelson amendment. As my colleague has
stated, it is a simple, straightforward measure that would require the
Federal Government to pay 100 percent of the costs of all new federally
mandated tests that would be required by the pending bill.
In any year that the Government fails to provide funding to the
States, the States simply would not have to administer the tests, and
the States could not be sanctioned for falling behind schedule in
developing their systems of assessment.
Six years ago, Congress passed, and the President signed, the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. The bill passed the Senate by a vote of
98-1. This was cause for celebration among the Nation's Governors. We
had been urging Congress for a long time to enact this kind of
legislation. I took a great deal of personal satisfaction when the law
was signed because as the Governor of Nebraska, I had invested years
urging its passage.
As Governor, I testified before committees in both the House and the
Senate on the problems that were caused by unfunded Federal mandates.
I became interested in curbing unfunded Federal mandates the very
first year I sat down to work on my new State budget. As the years went
by, I often wondered if I had actually been elected Governor of
Nebraska or simply branch manager for the Federal Government. I cannot
count the number of times that I had to cut my part of the budget, say
no to a good project or turn down a group of Nebraskans with good ideas
because all my available revenue was tied up complying with yet one
more unfunded Federal mandate handed down by Washington.
When the bill passed, I breathed a sigh of relief. In the Senate--
also at that time under new leadership--the unfunded Federal mandates
bill was designated as S. 1, signifying the priority placed on the
legislation. Coincidentally, S. 1 is the designation placed on the bill
we are currently considering. Senators from both sides of the aisle at
that time praised the unfunded mandates bill. One Senator said:
The result of these mandates is that local governments are
forced to abandon their own priorities, to offer fewer
services to the public, and to ultimately charge higher taxes
and utility rates . . . The solution to the problem of
unfunded mandates is to require Congress to pay for any
mandate it places on State and local governments.
Another Senator said:
This legislation will increase accountability.
There has been a lot of talk about accountability during the current
debate on this bill. We are asking teachers, parents, and schools for
accountability. We are going to hold States accountable for the money
the Federal Government will be spending. But where is the
accountability from Congress and the White House for the dollars that
States are going to have to spend for the testing requirements of this
bill?
I commend Senator Jeffords for his efforts to provide at least
partial funding for the testing that this bill will require, but I do
not believe it will be enough.
This bill will require the States to administer 12 different tests
for students in grades 3 through 8. It will also require each State to
participate in the NAEP test annually in grades 4 and 8, which accounts
for 4 more tests. That is a total of 16 tests per year. As we can see
from this chart, not all States currently administer tests with that
kind of frequency. Fewer than a third of the States administer reading
and math tests at all six grade levels each year. Another four States
conduct reading and math tests at five of those grade levels, three
States at four levels, and nine States at three levels. The remaining
19 States test students annually in reading and math at two or fewer
grade levels. If we don't count participation in NAEP, we are requiring
States to develop and administer another 216 tests. If we add in NAEP,
we are requiring the States to administer 316 tests per year. You get
the idea of the magnitude of testing involved in this bill.
As the other Senator from Minnesota explained several days ago, if
the goal of these tests is to improve education, then you can't give
cut-rate tests. An inexpensive, off-the-shelf test will not be able to
accurately tell us how well or how poorly our students are doing. Given
the stakes involved, States are not going to be able to administer
their
[[Page S5920]]
testing on the cheap. These tests are going to cost the States a great
deal of money, and they should.
In Nebraska, early in my tenure as Governor, we explored the costs of
testing students in four core curriculum subjects. We received an
estimate that ranged from $305 million for a basic test, and up to $13
million for one that would meet the standards for a good assessment in
a single test. That was almost 10 years ago.
Our own experts in Congress, the Congressional Research Service, have
said that complete information on the costs associated with student
testing is impossible to obtain. The National Governors' Association
estimated that these testing requirements could cost States at least
$900 million. The National Association of State Boards of Education has
estimated that they could cost between, as my colleague from Missouri
said, $2.7 and $7 billion, well above the $400 million provided for in
the bill.
The chart behind me shows the estimated cost to each State. No one
can for sure say how much this will cost the States, as the Senator
from Maine acknowledged yesterday with her amendment. I am willing to
wager that the roughly $400 million per year that is in the bill,
despite the best efforts of the Senator from Vermont, simply will not
be enough.
I understand that the administration has also circulated some numbers
that show that the costs might be less than what is contained in the
bill. If that is the case, I will be pleased. But if it isn't the case,
I hope the Senate will in fact adopt the amendment Senator Carnahan and
I have proposed.
Our amendment simply requires the Federal Government to pay 100
percent of the cost of all new federally mandated tests. If 100 percent
of the cost is less than what is currently in the bill, then perhaps we
can use the leftovers to hire and train more teachers, which many think
might be a good answer to the problem in any event. If 100 percent of
the cost is more than the $400 million in the bill, then we have a real
dilemma.
As the bill now stands, States will be responsible for every
additional penny that these tests cost. As we have seen, potential
costs can be very high.
In my State of Nebraska right now, there is not a lot of extra money
available. I am sure there is not a lot of money available in the State
of Missouri or the State of Florida, but there is no shortage of
critical needs in the education field in every State. We are facing a
teacher shortage in Nebraska that is of crisis proportions. Forty
percent of our teachers, more than 8,000 of them, are going to be
eligible to retire in the next 10 years. Our State won't be able to
replace the excellent teachers who are retiring if too much of our
State's money for education will be used to give tests instead of
raising teacher's pay and other educational priorities.
Nebraska won't be able to meet these critical needs because the extra
money simply isn't there and won't be there. The only alternative in my
State may be to shift the cost to the taxpayers through higher property
taxes. I am here to tell my colleagues that isn't acceptable in
Nebraska.
In talking with some of my colleagues about this amendment, I have
heard some additional concerns that I will address. I would like to be
clear that neither I nor the Senator from Missouri oppose testing or
setting high standards for students. While I was Governor, I severed as
chairman of the National Education Goals Panel, which is part of the
Goals 2000 effort, which called for setting high and measurable
standards for students. I led in the State, despite some determined
opposition, for developing strong educational standards in Nebraska.
Nor do we have any desire to weaken the accountability provisions of
this bill. Our amendment doesn't do that. If our schools aren't
preparing every child to succeed in the 21st century, then we are
obligated to fix them.
I have no doubt that Nebraska's teachers, students, and schools can
compete with any of those in any State in our Nation. This amendment
would only prevent the Federal Government from sanctioning a State for
falling behind schedule if it doesn't receive full funding for the cost
of testing.
I have also been told that some Senators are worried about writing a
blank Federal check to the States. They are concerned about a race to
the top in terms of cost.
As the bill is now written, the Senate doesn't seem to be concerned
about writing a blank check on each of the State's bank accounts
without their permission. I see the irony of that, and I hope others
do, too. But to address the concerns of my colleagues, we have added
provisions that require the Secretary of Education, as my colleague has
pointed out, to provide a report every year to both the authorizing and
appropriating committees that details the costs of testing. If States
are somehow gaming the system, we will know about it the first time it
happens, and then we can correct it if it is necessary.
As I said at the beginning of my remarks, this is a simple,
straightforward amendment. It requires the Federal Government to pay
the full cost of the tests mandated by the bill. Unless we commit to do
so, States will have to sacrifice funding for their own identified
priorities or be forced to once again shift the cost to taxpayers in
the form of higher property taxes.
I opened my remarks with a quote from a Senator who was describing
the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act that this body passed 6 years ago. I
think it might be worth repeating, as I come to a close. The Senator
said:
The result of these mandates is that local governments are
forced to abandon their own priorities, to offer fewer
services to the public, and to ultimately charge higher taxes
and utility rates . . . The solution to the problem of
unfunded mandates is to require Congress to pay for any
mandate it places on State and local governments.
I do not think I could say it better, and I may not have said it
better today.
Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Nelson of Florida). Is there a sufficient
second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I commend Senator Carnahan and Senator
Nelson for bringing this amendment to the attention of the Senate. What
we are focusing on, which is enormously important, is the issue of
testing and accountability.
Their amendment brings to focus whether we are going to give
assistance to the States and local communities to develop good quality
tests. We have had a good debate on the issue of quality of tests. The
Senate has gone on record in a bipartisan way to make sure we are going
to have good quality tests. The Senators rightfully raise the question
of whether our testing requirements are affordable and how are we going
to make sure the States are not going to be in the situation where they
will be left holding the bag, so to speak. It is a very important
policy issue.
Having said that, I do think we have made some progress on this
issue. I know it is not sufficient for Senator Carnahan and Senator
Nelson, but I want to briefly review how we reached the figures that
are included in the legislation. We listened to the recommendation of
the NASB, the National Association of School Boards.
They made the recommendation that the development of these tests were
going to amount to anywhere from $25 to $125 a student. The legislation
provides some $69 per student. NASB said that development costs could
be anywhere from $25 to $50. In this legislation, we provide only $20
per student.
What have we done? We accepted the Jeffords amendment that says,
unless we are going to have the funding for the testing program at NASB
recommended levels, we will not expect the States to have to comply
with that program. That is currently included in the Jeffords
amendment, and there was very broad support for the Jeffords amendment.
Under the Wellstone amendment, we have also added additional
resources of some $200 billion a year that will come to $2.8 billion to
make sure we are going to get quality. It is a legitimate question of
whether we are going to get the appropriations.
The two Senators are making a very important point that if we are
going to do this right, we have to get the resources to do it right.
There is no guarantee we will get those additional
[[Page S5921]]
funds, but there is a sufficient guarantee with the amendment of
Senator Jeffords that we will get the figures which I referred to
earlier.
We have accepted the Collins amendment which requires a GAO report by
May of 2002. That will provide an estimate of test development costs,
as well as administration costs, and we will still have 3 years before
the requirements for these tests are actually implemented to use that
information if we are finding we are going to fall further behind. That
is an additional protection.
A final point I will make is in the development of this approach
which puts us squarely in the middle of the NASB recommendations at
$69, when they have estimated the range goes from $25 to $125--it is
right in the middle--and it is at the low end of administrative costs,
there is a recognition that there has to be involvement of the State
because the evaluations are an important additional ingredient in the
States interest in making sure the children learn and have productive
results.
Therefore, their recommendation understands there is a considerable
amount of State staffing and teachers' time which would normally be
used that the Federal Government does not necessarily require under the
administration's proposal.
I think we are addressing this issue. I commend the Senators because
it is an enormously important issue, to make sure we are going to get
this right. The last thing we want to do is discourage a lot of
children and find out these tests are being used as punishment. There
are instances currently where they are being used as punishment, rather
than detecting what the children do not know and then using those tests
to provide supplementary services and changes in the curriculum to help
advance the children in education.
I am satisfied we have sufficient protections for the development of
these tests. We have the stopgap protection of the GAO report that will
come in a reasonable period of time, so if we are falling further
behind, we will be able to take action.
I have in my hand the current annual spending on tests per student by
the 50 States. Under this proposal, it is $69. There is not a single
State that is even close to $20 today. There are some States as low as
$1.37. I will not read the names of the States, but reading from the
bottom of the page: $1.37, $2.93, $6.65, $17.16, $12, $14, $8.69, $2,
$15, $12, $9, $15, $7, $5, and the list goes on. That reflects all 50
States.
We are at least quadrupling, maybe as much as quintupling financial
support for quality testing with the guarantee under the Jeffords'
amendment.
No matter how this vote comes out, I give assurance of our strong
interest in this. We will continue to work with my two colleagues on
this issue because it is incredibly important and it reaches the heart
of this whole issue of accountability.
We want to get it right. We are going in a different direction, and
we are going into uncharted waters. We do not want to have the children
bear the burden of our mistakes. This is something we needed to
address. I hope they feel we are addressing it. I know they prefer to
have the absolute guarantee. I respect that position, but I hope our
colleagues will feel that in the legislation, as we have developed it,
we have responded to their concern.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I rise to speak in opposition to the
underlying amendment and to support and reinforce many of the comments
the Senator from Massachusetts made on this particular amendment.
I, too, applaud the authors for this amendment because it is clear
that in our goal to leave no child behind, it is going to require more
assessments, measurable standards. You have to examine to make the
diagnosis, and to do that, and do it effectively, it is going to
require a series of assessments that can be compared year to year in a
longitudinal way to track. It can be used to compare whether it is
school to school so we know what works and does not work, or State to
State. Those tests are going to require something.
The concern of both Senate sponsors of this amendment is that those
resources be available because they are mandates, and they are new
mandates. They are mandates that we in a bipartisan way agree with in
assessment, expectation, and accountability of leaving no child
behind. That being the case, and that being the goal, the questions are
twofold: No. 1, is there adequate funding proposed? And that is the
essence of this bill; there is a fear that there is not. No. 2, have we
been able to improve the bill, through the amendment process in the
underlying bill, to such a degree that such funds are available? We
clearly believe so.
The underlying amendment I speak in opposition to, says, ``a State
shall not be required to conduct any assessments under paragraph 3 in
any school year if''--and the provisions are listed after that. I will
stop right there. ``A State shall not be required to conduct any
assessment under paragraph 3 . . . if''--and I will stop there.
That brings to heart two arguments: No. 1, is testing important, is
measuring results important, is assessment important? I believe very
strongly they are important.
In a bipartisan way, we worked aggressively to underscore that these
assessments are important and there should be no ``if" after it.
No. 2, is the funding adequate itself? It comes back to their
provision that 100 percent of the cost of the assessments must be
guaranteed or you do not do the assessments. That comes to the question
to which Senator Kennedy spoke. We believe the bill has been improved
and those funds are available.
The first point, we should do nothing in the amendment process in the
bill that will in any way say we are anti-achievement, anti-measurable
standards, anti-accountable, anti-high expectation. I believe this
amendment is just that. The Carnahan-Nelson amendment potentially
nullifies any new testing requirements for a State. These testing
requirements, the measurable results have been arrived at through the
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, through much
debate and a bipartisan working group, debated regarding establishing
importance and how these would be carried out and what sort of
standards would be met. By potentially stripping away those provisions
we are tearing out the heart of this bill, tearing out the heart of
what President Bush feels so strongly about, that we leave no child
behind.
Remember, the amendment says, a State shall not be required to
conduct any assessments . . . if. That is enough for me to argue
against this amendment.
Annual measurements are important. In the underlying bill, we start
in the third grade. It is third through the eighth grade, giving an
opportunity to make sure the money we invest in this bill is spent
properly. Over the last several weeks we have invested huge, huge
amounts of money through the authorization process, and we will see a
lot more in appropriations. The President of the United States is
committed to spending more in education this year than any President in
the past if it is coupled with reform. Those accountability provisions
cannot be gutted, cannot be torn out of this bill. There should be no
``if.''
Second, is the question of funding. Again, we should never put
dollars in front of children. The Senator from Massachusetts mentioned
the Jeffords amendment which passed on the second day the bill was
brought to the floor. He mentioned the Wellstone amendment. He
mentioned the Collins amendment which looks at a GAO study to look at
the specific issue of testing what should be required in terms of those
tests and the evaluation of those tests. In the Jeffords amendment and
the Wellstone amendment, again, over $2.8 billion will be made
available for this testing.
We have an amendment which addresses the fundamental concern, a
legitimate concern, that this is a serious mandate, so serious that,
first and foremost, there should be no ``if'' after the clause.
Second, the hypothetical that if Congress does not end up with
appropriate funding as required by what we passed in the way of reform
in the bill itself--I share concern with my colleagues, in the bill as
amended, the States may delay, already, implementation of the tests,
are not required to conduct any assessments because assessments have to
be in there, but delay implementation of the tests until the
appropriate funding is available, and this is already in the bill.
[[Page S5922]]
Every State is addressing this issue of funding and the requirement
of having assessments in a different way. In my State of Tennessee, we
already test students for math and reading in the third grade, the
fourth grade, the fifth grade, the sixth grade, the seventh grade, and
the eighth grade. At least $50 million will be coming to Tennessee for
these assessments. Tennessee will have the flexibility today to use
that $50 million. It could be more than that, but we can improve the
test and make it longitudinal to compare a student and see how they
progress over time. That flexibility is there.
Last, and I will close, I think we all agree on the importance of
measurable results and the assessments so we will know how our children
are doing. This amendment is unnecessary to my mind. The $2.8 billion
added in the amendment process already addresses this issue.
Every State has the opportunity in the amendment to opt out of
standards, measurable results, achievement, the high expectations that
are the heart and soul of the bill.
I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment when it comes to
the floor.
Mr. GREGG. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I associate myself with the Senator from Tennessee. It was an
excellent statement summarizing the views I also hold. I associate
myself with the statement of Senator Kennedy.
We are ready to yield back our time and go to a vote if the other
side is prepared. We yield back our time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
Mrs. CARNAHAN. Mr. President, I suggest to the Senator from Tennessee
that he has already announced this was, in fact, a mandate. It is an
inadequately funded mandate at that. I reiterate, what we have in cost
is a best guess estimate. There is no certainty. The current bill
provides protection only if $400 million is all that is needed. Beyond
that, we have no guarantee. We have no guarantee that the Wellstone
amendment or others will have money appropriated.
This amendment, I might also suggest, is not an anti-testing
amendment. The only circumstances where States will be released from
the testing requirement is if the Federal Government fails to provide
full funding. Anyone who makes an anti-testing argument about this
amendment is implicitly saying that the Federal Government is not going
to pay the full cost of the tests. If you say the Federal Government is
not going to pay the full costs of the tests, I ask in return, what
part of local budgets do you plan to cut to make up the difference? Are
you going to cut teachers' salaries or textbooks or other resources
that are stretched too thin?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is expired. The question is on
agreeing to amendment No. 385. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The
clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Crapo) and
the Senator from Utah (Mr. Hatch) are necessarily absent.
I further announce that if present and voting, the Senator from Utah
(Mr. Hatch) would vote ``nay.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 43, nays 55, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 174 Leg.]
YEAS--43
Allard
Allen
Baucus
Bayh
Biden
Boxer
Breaux
Cantwell
Carnahan
Carper
Cleland
Clinton
Conrad
Corzine
Daschle
Dayton
Dodd
Durbin
Edwards
Feingold
Graham
Harkin
Hollings
Kerry
Kohl
Leahy
Levin
Lincoln
McCain
Mikulski
Miller
Murray
Nelson (NE)
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Schumer
Stabenow
Torricelli
Voinovich
Wellstone
Wyden
NAYS--55
Akaka
Bennett
Bingaman
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Chafee
Cochran
Collins
Craig
DeWine
Domenici
Dorgan
Ensign
Enzi
Feinstein
Fitzgerald
Frist
Gramm
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Helms
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kyl
Landrieu
Lieberman
Lott
Lugar
McConnell
Murkowski
Nelson (FL)
Nickles
Roberts
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Warner
NOT VOTING--2
Crapo
Hatch
The amendment (No. 385) was rejected.
Mr. KENNEDY. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. BREAUX. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Lincoln). The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. We have an amendment from the good Senator from New
Hampshire, and then after we address that amendment and dispose of it,
the Senator from Minnesota, Mr. Wellstone, has a very important
amendment where he intends to address the Senate for a period of time.
So we are making some progress now. We have already included a number
of amendments, about 15 amendments that were cleared earlier in the
day. We are continuing to make progress. We are grateful for all the
support we are receiving from all of our Members. We are going to
continue to press ahead.
I look forward to the consideration of the amendment offered by the
Senator from New Hampshire.
Amendment No. 487 To Amendment No. 358
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from New
Hampshire is recognized to call up amendment No. 487, on which there
shall be 40 minutes of debate to be equally divided and controlled.
The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Madam President, I call up amendment No.
487.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Smith] proposes an
amendment numbered 487.
Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I ask unanimous consent reading of the
amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: Expressing the sense of the Senate to urge that no less than
95 percent of Federal education dollars be spent in the classroom)
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. ____. SENSE OF SENATE ON THE PERCENTAGE OF FEDERAL
EDUCATION FUNDING THAT IS SPENT IN THE
CLASSROOM.
(a) Findings.--The Senate makes the following findings:
(1) Effective and meaningful teaching begins by helping
children master basic academics, holding children to high
academic standards, using sound research based methods of
instruction in the classroom, engaging and involving parents,
establishing and maintaining safe and orderly classrooms, and
getting funds to the classroom.
(2) America's children deserve an educational system that
provides them with numerous opportunities to excel.
(3) States and localities spend a significant amount of
education tax dollars on bureaucratic red tape by applying
for and administering Federal education dollars.
(4) Several States have reported that although they receive
less than 10 percent of their education funding from the
Federal Government, more than 50 percent of their education
paperwork and administration efforts are associated with
those Federal funds.
(5) According to the Department of Education, in 1998, 84
percent of the funds allocated by the Department for
elementary and secondary education were allocated to local
educational agencies and used for instruction and
instructional support.
(6) The remainder of the funds allocated by the Department
of Education for elementary and secondary education in 1998
was allocated to States, universities, national programs, and
other service providers.
(7) The total spent by the Department of Education for
elementary and secondary education does not take into account
what States spend to receive Federal funds and comply with
Federal requirements for elementary and secondary education,
nor does it reflect the percentage of Federal funds allocated
to school districts that is spent on students in the
classroom.
(8) American students are not performing up to their full
academic potential, despite significant Federal education
initiatives and funding from a variety of Federal agencies.
(9) According to the Digest of Education Statistics, only
54 percent of $278,965,657,000 spent on elementary and
secondary education during the 1995-96 school year was spent
on ``instruction''.
[[Page S5923]]
(10) According to the National Center for Education
Statistics, only 52 percent of staff employed in public
elementary and secondary school systems in 1996 were
teachers, and, according to the General Accounting Office,
Federal education dollars funded 13,397 full-time equivalent
positions in State educational agencies in fiscal year 1993.
(11) In fiscal year 1998, the paperwork and data reporting
requirements of the Department of Education amounted to
40,000,000 so-called ``burden hours'', which is equivalent to
nearly 20,000 people working 40 hours a week for one full
year, time and energy which would be better spent teaching
children in the classroom.
(12) Too large a percentage of Federal education funds is
spent on bureaucracy, special interests, and ineffective
programs, and too little is effectively and efficiently spent
on our America's youth.
(13) Requiring an allocation of 95 percent of all Federal
elementary and secondary education funds to classrooms would
provide substantial additional funding per classroom across
the United States.
(14) More education funding should be put in the hands of
someone in a classroom who knows the children personally and
frequently interacts with the children.
(15) Burdensome regulations, requirements, and mandates
should be refined, consolidated or removed so that school
districts can devote more resources to educating children in
classrooms.
(b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate to
urge the Department of Education, the States, and local
educational agencies to work together to ensure that not less
than 95 percent of all funds appropriated for carrying out
elementary and secondary education programs administered by
the Department be spent to improve the academic achievement
of our children in their classrooms.
Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Madam President, I rise today to discuss
my amendment, which is a sense-of-the-Senate amendment, but it has a
very important point to make. It states that not less than 95 percent
of all funds that are appropriated for carrying out elementary and
secondary education, administered by the Department of Education, be
spent to improve the academic achievement of our children in the
classroom; in other words, 95 percent of the money in this bill should
go to the classroom for our children, which is where it should go.
As a former teacher, I think I would understand perhaps as well as
anyone in this body how important it is to get those funds directly
into the classroom where the kids can benefit.
I thank Representative Sam Graves of Missouri for offering a similar
amendment to the House education bill over there which ensures that 95
percent of education money is spent locally.
Congressman Graves' amendment was passed overwhelmingly in the House.
I believe the Senate should go on record supporting local control of
Federal education dollars as well.
It might sound like an anomaly--local control of Federal education
dollars--but if the Federal education dollars are going to be sent to
the State, then give the State the flexibility to spend them. Let the
local people make the decisions wherever possible.
The other side of the aisle has been offering up amendment after
amendment after amendment calling for more funding for numerous
education programs. Many of these amendments have been adopted over the
past several days and hours. But if we are going to allocate more money
for education, then I think we need to make a statement, which I do in
my amendment, that it is vital to ensure that the money be spent in the
classroom for the children. That is the appropriate way to spend those
dollars.
After all, if the Federal Government is going to spend billions of
dollars on education, then those dollars should go not to some
bureaucracy, not to establish some mechanism to send those dollars into
the local schools, but, rather, getting the money directly to the local
schools.
I think we all know the cost of getting dollars into the State from
the Federal Government--what it costs you to send the money to the
local community--is pretty high. In fact, in New Hampshire it is about
47 cents on the dollar, which is not a good return.
As a former New Hampshire teacher and school board chairman, I had
the opportunity to see this on both sides, both as a board member and
as a teacher--and also as a parent for 26-plus years. I am convinced
that decisions regarding education are best executed at the local level
and that we should not run our public schools from Washington, DC. We
do not need a national school board.
Some will say: With all these Federal dollars, how do you do it? We
can provide Federal dollars, if we must, but let's do it with as few
strings as possible to allow the local boards and the local parents to
make the decisions, the local communities.
Our public schools--and I say this as a former public school
teacher--hold so much promise. I want to make sure the Senate goes on
record today that a minimum of 95 cents of every education dollar
should go directly to those classrooms.
We need to give 95 cents of every dollar. It is a shame we can't give
100 percent, a dollar for every dollar, to those teachers and students
in New Hampshire and not to some bureaucrat or bureaucracy in
Washington, DC.
We need to support education, not regulation, if we are going to
spend the money. My amendment simply directs the Department of
Education to join our States and local school districts in an all-out
effort to direct 95 percent of our Federal education dollars to the
place in which it belongs--the classroom. I don't think that is
unreasonable.
It is important to understand that the Department of Education has
not been entirely responsible with the billions of dollars in
taxpayers' money we have been giving to them over the years. Some of it
has been spent responsibly, but a lot of it has not. Let me give a few
examples of some of the waste at the Department of Education.
I hate to bring it up, but it is important to understand that if you
just continue to throw good money after bad, you never correct the
problem. There were 21 cases where grant checks were issued twice to
the same recipients, for a total cost to the taxpayers of America of
$250 million. Auditors were able to recover the money eventually, but
how much time and how much cost was involved in recovering the $250
million? That is the point. It should not have happened. We are
careless.
We can eliminate a lot of these kinds of mistakes--and maybe some of
it is deliberate; I don't know--by simply stipulating that it is the
sense of the Congress and the Senate that 95 cents on every dollar go
to the classroom, so when these kinds of things happen, these people
know they are going to be held accountable, that we mean business, that
the Senate means business, that 95 cents of every dollar is going to go
to the classroom, not for this kind of nonsense with the duplication of
grant checks.
Some will say that was just a mistake; 21 mistakes is not a big deal.
Maybe it was a mistake, but it is a careless mistake. If the
bureaucracy knows it can be held accountable, they will be a little
more careful. What would happen if we hadn't found the mistakes? If we
had not had an auditor finding that mistake, it would have cost the
taxpayers $250 million.
I say to every American who is listening to me now, think of any
school district, yours in particular, wherever you live in America, and
think about the classroom, perhaps the one where your child is. Could
you use a little bit of that $250 million in your classroom, if you are
a teacher, or your child's classroom, if you are a parent? I can think
of a lot of things I could have done with a few million dollars in my
classroom when I was teaching, whether it was more textbooks, perhaps
raising teachers' pay. It is better than throwing it away in mistakes
made by a bureaucracy that has run roughshod over the whole educational
system.
Let me cite another example of waste at the Department of Education.
Twenty-one employees were allowed to write checks of up to $10,000
without supervision--no accountability--from May 1998 to September
2000; 19,000 checks totaling $23 million were written by these people.
Who is checking on that? Who is making sure that those 21 employees who
wrote checks of up to $10,000 without supervision--who is checking to
find out whether that $23 million was the right amount of money?
We also have the example of 141 unapproved purchases in the
Department of Education totaling more than $1 million-- purchases that
were made on Government credit cards for software, cell phones,
Internet, computers. Even though DOD guidelines--Department of Defense
guidelines--specifically say these things are not to be purchased on
credit cards, you have $1 million worth
[[Page S5924]]
of purchases, 141 purchases totaling $1 million.
The point I make here is, the more rein and flexibility you give to
the bureaucracy, the more dollars you throw away; without a firm
accountability, the more it is going to be wasted. If we pass this
amendment and we say the Senate has now spoken and has said that 95
cents will go to the classroom, when we hear about such things, people
will be a little bit concerned about it. They will be more self-
conscious. They will be more careful. It is going to be a win-win, a
win for the kids in the classroom and a win for the taxpayers.
This year tax freedom day was May 3, 2001, according to the tax
foundation. Tax freedom day is the average day that Americans start
working for themselves as opposed to the Government. President Bush's
tax cut package will certainly help in that regard, but as it stands
now, from January 1, 2001, to May 11, 2001, Americans work for their
respective local and State governments and the Federal Government. That
is, from January 1 to May 11, every dollar you earn went to one of
those governments, local, State, or Federal. You didn't earn anything
for yourself. You started earning money for yourself on May 12.
I want every American to know that the money spent by the Federal
Government should not be wasted, including the Department of Education.
If we put this restriction on, we are making a very strong statement
that we expect you to be accountable. We don't want to hear any more
stories about 141 purchases totaling more than $1 million in unapproved
credit card purchases or grant checks issued twice to the tune of $250
million. We don't want to hear about it. We are not going to tolerate
it. That is what we are saying if we support this amendment.
If you don't care, if you don't want the bureaucracy to be
accountable and you couldn't care less whether we waste $250 million,
even though taxpayers work hard until May 11 just to pay their bills,
then you should vote against my amendment. I encourage you to vote
against my amendment if that is what you believe. If you think it is OK
that taxpayers can work until May 11 and not get a dime for themselves
and you don't care about waste, fraud, or any other abuse in the
bureaucracy, then vote against my amendment. But if you care about
taxpayers saving their hard-earned money and putting it to use for
themselves and you care about getting money directly to the classroom,
to the kids, then you should vote for my amendment.
That is exactly the way the amendment should be evaluated. You are
either for kids getting the money and saving taxpayers money, or you
are in favor of wasting taxpayer money and do not care whether the kids
get the money in the classroom or not. It is pretty simple.
The American people work very hard for that money. The Federal
Government should not squander one cent of it. Actually, too many of
our tax dollars are spent on bureaucracies at all levels of government,
not just the Department of Education. That waste is not going to end
tomorrow. We must pledge to do better. We must tell the Department of
Education to give the money to the localities. Let them spend it as
they see fit. Don't spend it here in Washington, DC, with some
bureaucracy to funnel the money.
Federal education dollars should not be spent to expand some bloated
bureaucracy here in Washington. Lord knows, we have enough bloated
bureaucracies here. Those precious dollars should go right to the
educational opportunities of our kids. More education dollars should be
spent directly in the classroom, and we need to shift the focus of our
education system back to the students.
This is a great way to do it. It is a simple statement. It is a sense
of the Senate. It is not binding, but it is a sense of the Senate that
says: We want you to do that. We expect you to do that. If you don't do
it at the Department of Education, then we may just have to come after
you. We expect you to save the money for the taxpayers and get the
money to the students.
My amendment supports the proposition that the best education is the
education left to the local decisionmakers and that the best way to be
accountable to our taxpayers is to eliminate the bureaucracy and the
high cost of getting the money to the local community and getting it
there quickly and cheaply.
The Heritage Foundation issued a report recently titled ``U.S.
Department of Education Financing of Elementary and Secondary
Education, Where the Money Goes.'' It is a very interesting report. It
found that as the United States prepares to enter the 21st century, its
educational system is in crisis, the public education system. I agree
with that. We talk about the crisis in energy and in other matters.
There is a very interesting finding in this report. I will just give a
brief quote from it:
The vast majority of all Federal education funds does not
go to schools or school districts.
Think about that.
The vast majority of all Federal education funds does not
go to schools or school districts.
That seems to be a dichotomy if I ever heard one. Why wouldn't it?
Where is it going?
In 1995, 33 percent of the total $100 billion the federal
government allocated for education was spent by the
Department of Education . . . 40 percent of Department of
Education funds went to local educational agencies, 13.1
percent of total federal education spending. Contrary to what
many Americans believe, the Department of Education funds
very few elementary and secondary education programs in their
local communities.
That is an outrageous finding--they are funding very few elementary
and secondary education programs. What is the purpose of the Federal
Department of Education if it is not going to give money to local
communities for elementary and secondary education?
How do we get it to the classroom? What actually makes it to the
classroom? What gets to the classroom? Let's find out.
According to the Heritage Foundation:
Audits around the country have found that as little as 26
percent of school district funds is being spent on classroom
expenditures.
Classroom expenditures are defined as expenditures for teachers and
materials for their students--26 percent.
If that is acceptable to my colleagues, vote against my amendment.
Please vote against it because I want to be honest; I want to be
straightforward. If my colleagues think it is OK to take a dollar from
the taxpayer for education and 26 percent of that dollar goes to the
kids and the rest does not, if that is OK with them, then please vote
against my amendment. But if my colleagues really believe we ought to
get the money to the kids, then vote for my amendment.
Do my colleagues want to increase the bureaucracy and have a lot of
people sitting around making decisions they should not be making and
wasting money and having all these findings we just discussed a few
moments ago? Then vote against my amendment. If they want to eliminate
that and get the money directly to the kids, then they should vote for
it.
My amendment makes several findings to support the conclusion that 95
percent of all funds we are going to spend on the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act be spent to improve the academic achievement of
our children in their classrooms.
My amendment, in finding 4, states that:
Several States have reported that although they receive
less than 10 percent of their education funding from the
Federal Government, more than 50 percent of their education
paperwork and administration efforts are associated with
those Federal funds.
Fifty percent of the paperwork is associated with the Federal funds.
We always hear this talk about we are going to eliminate the
bureaucracy, we are going to clear up the paperwork. It never happens.
We are going to reinvent Government.
How many times have we heard all these phrases? It is very simple.
Just accept this resolution that it is unacceptable for anything less
than 95 percent to go to the classroom and then enforce it. When my
colleagues see all those bureaucracies popping up, let's get rid of
them and put the money into the classrooms.
We need to make sure that education money is not wasted on paperwork
and administrative personnel. There always has to be a commission or a
board or a bunch of people sitting around juggling papers to determine
this requirement or that requirement, how much money goes here and who
has to administer it,
[[Page S5925]]
and then another bureaucracy pops up to administer the previous
bureaucracy.
Take a look at this. The Department of Education started less than 30
years ago at $2 billion, $3 billion. It is now in the tens of billions
of dollars to run it. Unfortunately, only 26 cents on the dollar gets
to the kids.
My amendment, in finding 11, states:
In fiscal year 1998 the paperwork and data reporting
requirements of the Department of Education amounted to 40
million so-called--
Only in Government would we hear a phrase such as this--
burden hours, which is the equivalent of nearly 20,000 people
working 40 hours a week for one full year. Time and energy
which would be better spent teaching children in the
classroom.
Burden hours, only in Washington. It is like getting on an elevator
in Washington. Only in Washington does one get on an elevator to go up
to the basement. If you do not believe me, get on the elevator anywhere
around here and you find that to be true. Only in Washington, only in
Government, do we have these kinds of phrases. It is nonsense. Burden
hours, the equivalent of nearly 20,000 people working 40 hours a week
for 1 full year.
The Federal Government needs to decrease paperwork requirements and
data reporting. We have to stop talking about it and start doing it.
Those Federal requirements may make for nice Government reports. There
is a report right here. Here is the report on the bill. I am sure every
Senator has read this word for word, sitting back in their offices at
night. They read it before they go to bed. They get up in the morning
and read every word of it. Look at this stuff. There are tens of
thousands of pages of background that go into this report.
Here is another one. Here is the bill. That is the report. This is
the bill. This is even bigger and larger. Look, page after page after
page--more bureaucracy. The Department needs to look at reducing
regulations and how Federal money is spent, reducing paperwork.
Madam President, I ask that the Senate go on record that not less
than 95 cents of every Federal education dollar be spent or used in the
classroom, and I do not think that is an unreasonable request.
Has my time expired?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I ask for the yeas and nays before I
yield the floor.
Mr. REID. This side will be happy to yield back our time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has requested the yeas and nays.
Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. REID. If I may be heard briefly. Madam President, we are willing
to take a voice vote after listening to the Senator's statement to the
Senate. However, it appears he wants to have a recorded vote. We have
no objection to that if the Senator wants a recorded vote. We happen to
second his request.
Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. The Senator is correct; I request a
recorded vote. I yield the floor, Madam President.
Mr. REID. We yield back our time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired. The question is on
agreeing to amendment No. 487. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Crapo), the
Senator from Utah (Mr. Hatch), and the Senator from Montana (Mr. Burns)
are necessarily absent.
I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Utah
(Mr. Hatch) and the Senator from Montana (Mr. Burns) would each vote
``yea.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 96, nays 1, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 175 Leg.]
YEAS--96
Akaka
Allard
Allen
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Breaux
Brownback
Bunning
Byrd
Campbell
Cantwell
Carnahan
Carper
Chafee
Cleland
Clinton
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Corzine
Craig
Daschle
Dayton
DeWine
Dodd
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Ensign
Feingold
Feinstein
Fitzgerald
Frist
Graham
Gramm
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Harkin
Helms
Hollings
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Mikulski
Miller
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Nickles
Reed
Reid
Roberts
Rockefeller
Santorum
Sarbanes
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Torricelli
Voinovich
Warner
Wellstone
Wyden
NAYS--1
Enzi
NOT VOTING--3
Burns
Crapo
Hatch
The amendment (No. 487) was agreed to.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. KENNEDY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Amendment Nos. 791 as further modified, 363 as further modified, and
356, As Modified
Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the
previously agreed to amendments, No. 791 by Mr. Bingaman, No. 363 by
Mr. Torricelli, and No. 356 by Mr. Corzine, be further modified with
the changes at the desk in order to conform to the underlying Jeffords
substitute amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
The amendments (Nos. 791 as further modified, 363 as further
modified, and 356), as modified, are as follows:
Amendment No. 791, as further modified.
On page 7, line 21, insert ``after consultation with the
Governor'' after ``agency''.
On page 8, line 1, insert ``after consultation with the
Governor'' after ``agency''.
On page 35, line 10, strike the end quotation mark and the
second period.
On page 35, between lines 10 and 11, insert the following:
``(c) State Plan.--Each State educational agency, in
consultation with the Governor, shall prepare a plan to carry
out the responsibilities of the State under 1116 and 1117,
including carrying out the State educational agency's
statewide system of technical assistance and support for
local educational agencies.''.
On page 35, line 20, insert the following: ``prepared by
the chief State school official, in consultation with the
Governor,'' after ``a plan''.
On page 706, line 8, insert ``, after consultation with the
Governor,'' after ``which''.
On page 706, line 16, insert ``fter consultation with the
Governor, a'' after ``A''.
On page 707, line 2, insert ``fter consultation with the
Governor, a'' after ``A''.
____
AMENDMENT NO. 363, AS FURTHER MODIFIED
On page 71, line 24, strike ``and''.
On page 72, line 3, strike all after ``1118'' and insert
``; and''.
On page 72, between lines 3 and 4, insert the following:
``(11) where appropriate, a description of how the local
educational agency will use funds under this part to support
school year extension programs under section 1120C for low-
performing schools.'';
On page 175, between lines 16 and 17, insert the following:
SEC. 120D. SCHOOL YEAR EXTENSION ACTIVITIES.
Subpart 1 of part A of title I (20 U.S.C. 6311 et seq.) is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``SEC. 1120C. SCHOOL YEAR EXTENSION ACTIVITIES.
``(b) Use of Funds.--
``(1) In general.--A local educational agency may use funds
received under this part to--
``(A) to extend the length of the school year to 210 days;
``(C) conduct outreach to and consult with community
members, including parents, students, and other stakeholders
to develop a plan to extend learning time within or beyond
the school day or year; and
``(D) research, develop, and implement strategies,
including changes in curriculum and instruction.
``(c) Application.--A local educational agency desiring to
use funds under this section shall submit an application to
the State educational agency at such time, in such manner,
and accompanied by such information as the agency may
require. Each application shall describe--
``(1) the activities to be carried out under this section;
``(2) any study or other information-gathering project for
which funds will be used;
``(3) the strategies and methods the applicant will use to
enrich and extend learning time for all students and to
maximize high quality instruction in the core academic
[[Page S5926]]
areas during the school day, such as block scheduling, team
teaching, longer school days or years, and extending learning
time through new distance-learning technologies;
``(4) the strategies and methods the applicant will use,
including changes in curriculum and instruction, to challenge
and engage students and to maximize the productiveness of
common core learning time, as well as the total time students
spend in school and in school-related enrichment activities;
``(5) the strategies and methods the applicant intends to
employ to provide continuing financial support for the
implementation of any extended school day or school year;
``(6) with respect to any application to carry out
activities described in subsection (b)(1)(A), a description
of any feasibility or other studies demonstrating the
sustainability of a longer school year;
``(7) the extent of involvement of teachers and other
school personnel in investigating, designing, implementing
and sustaining the activities assisted under this section;
``(8) the process to be used for involving parents and
other stakeholders in the development and implementation of
the activities assistance under this section;
``(9) any cooperation or collaboration among public housing
authorities, libraries, businesses, museums, community-based
organizations, and other community groups and organizations
to extend engaging, high-quality, standards-based learning
time outside of the school day or year, at the school or at
some other site;
``(10) the training and professional development activities
that will be offered to teachers and others involved in the
activities assisted under this section;
``(11) the goals and objectives of the activities assisted
under this section, including a description of how such
activities will assist all students to reach State standards;
``(12) the methods by which the applicant will assess
progress in meeting such goals and objectives; and
``(13) how the applicant will use funds provided under this
section in coordination with funds provided under other
Federal laws.
____
amendment no. 356, as modified
On page 684, line 6, strike ``and''.
On page 684, line 7, strike the period and insert ``;
and''.
On page 684, between lines 7 and 8, insert the following:
``(O) activities to promote consumer, economic, and
personal finance education, such as disseminating and
encouraging the use of the best practices for teaching the
basic principles of economics and promoting the concept of
achieving financial literacy through the teaching of personal
financial management skills (including the basic principles
involved in earning, spending, saving, and investing).''.
Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, we are moving along. I am very
appreciative of the cooperation we are getting. We now have a very
important amendment by Senator Wellstone which is one of the most
important that we will have during this debate. We have some good time
allocated for a very good discussion. Senator Wellstone will open and,
obviously, respond to questions. It is our intention, following Senator
Wellstone, to consider the amendment of the Senator from New York, Mrs.
Clinton, dealing with dilapidated schools, and Senator Feinstein
dealing with school construction. And Senator Kerry, my colleague, has
two on principals and alternative placements. Those are listed in the
list of amendments. I understand there may be amendments from the other
side related to those. But we are trying to move this.
Obviously, if there are amendments related to it, we will deal with
them the way we have in the past, but I wanted to at least give our
Members an idea about what is coming up this afternoon. We are hopeful
to continue to make good progress through the course of the afternoon.
Mr. GREGG. Madam President, I also believe Senator Hutchison has an
amendment.
Mr. KENNEDY. I appreciate that. Senator Hutchison has a very
important amendment. A number of our colleagues have been interested in
that subject matter. That has been going on for a number of days. They
have been very constructive resolutions. I hope perhaps after Senator
Clinton we might be able to consider that amendment. We will be in
touch with the Republican leader, and we will give her as much notice
as we can, but we will try to see if we can't dispose of it after the
Clinton amendment.
Mr. REID. Madam President, Senator Daschle last night in the closing
minutes of the Senate indicated that one of the things he wanted to do
was hold the votes as close to 20 minutes as possible. Today we have
done fairly well in that regard. The votes have run over. The first one
was 25 minutes and this one was 26 or 27 minutes. We are trying to make
the 20-minute mark that the majority leader has given us. I say to all
the staff listening and Senators who are watching, I hope they
understand the 20-minute rule Senator Daschle is going to try to get us
trained to respond to. We have wasted so much time waiting for people
to come. It is going to be necessary for some people to miss votes. I
hope everyone will understand that this is the only way we can be
considerate of others. There shouldn't be hard feelings. This will be
applied as we are trying to do everything here on a bipartisan basis.
Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I know the Senator will be here
momentarily. I will request the absence of a quorum until he is here to
present his amendment. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Reed). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Amendment No. 466 to Amendment No. 358
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from
Minnesota, Mr. Wellstone, is recognized to call up amendment No. 466,
on which there shall be 4 hours to be equally divided and controlled.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I am going to send the amendment to the
desk on behalf of myself and Senator Dodd, along with Senators Dayton,
Feingold, Clinton, Hollings, Murray, Reed, and Corzine.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is currently at the desk. Are
you modifying this?
Mr. WELLSTONE. The amendment is at the desk. I am sorry. I ask
unanimous consent that the additional Senators be added as cosponsors.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report the amendment.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Wellstone], for himself,
Mr. Dodd, Mr. Dayton, Mr. Feingold, Mrs. Clinton, Mr.
Hollings, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Reed, and Mr. Corzine, proposes an
amendment numbered 466.
Mr. WELLSTONE. I ask unanimous consent reading of the amendment be
dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To limit the conduct of certain assessments based on the
provision of sufficient funding to carry out part A of title I of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965)
On page 48, between lines 14 and 15, insert the following:
``(iii) no State shall be required to conduct any
assessments under this subparagraph in any school year if, by
July 1, 2005, the amount appropriated to carry out this part
for fiscal year 2005 does not equal or exceed
$24,720,000,000;''.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, this amendment, I think in a lot of
ways, is kind of a test case of whether or not we are passing a reform
bill. I will have a lot to say about this, and other Senators will as
well. I am certainly hoping that colleagues on the other side--whether
they are Republicans or Democrats--who disagree will come to this
Chamber to express their dissent so that I can know what possible
arguments can be made against this amendment.
There are many Senators who have said publicly in this Chamber, and
back in their States, and in interviews with the media, that we have to
have this testing for the accountability--we can talk more about that
later--but that, in addition, we also have to have the resources to
make sure that the children, the schools, and the teachers have the
tools to do well.
The testing is supposed to assess the reform. The testing is not
supposed to be the reform. I remember at the very beginning, a long
time ago, I said: You cannot realize the goal of leaving no child
behind or you cannot talk about an education reform program if it is on
a tin cup budget; you have to have the resources.
I have heard many Senators say: We are for the testing for the
accountability, but we are also going to invest in these children and
make sure there are the resources. That is point 1.
[[Page S5927]]
Point 2: Senator Dodd and Senator Collins came to this Chamber with a
very important amendment which authorized a dramatic increase in
resources for the title I program. It was a bipartisan amendment. There
were, I believe, 79 Senators who voted for this amendment.
This amendment was a Paul Simon amendment. It turns out the Senator
from Illinois is in the Senate Chamber. This amendment was an education
amendment by Senator Dodd and Senator Collins. I say to the best friend
I ever had in the Senate--Senator Paul Simon of Illinois--who is here,
that what I am now saying to every Senator is: 79 Senators voted for an
authorization, but that is not money. That is fiction.
This amendment says that by 2005--we committed in that amendment that
we would spend $24.72 billion for title I which would go to the benefit
of children for extra reading help, for afterschool, for
prekindergarten, all of which is critically important.
So what this amendment says is that the tests we are authorizing need
not be implemented unless we, in fact, appropriate the money at the
level we said we would. This was the amount the Dodd amendment
authorized. We have been saying to our States: We are going to get you
the resources. So what we are saying in this amendment is that States
do not have to do this unless we make the commitment to the resources.
I have heard people talk about the need to walk our talk. I have
heard Senator after Senator say that they are for accountability but
they are for resources. I do not know how Senators can vote against
this proposal. We said we were for authorizing this money. This
amendment is a trigger amendment. It says that we make this commitment
to $24.72 billion for title I. And this amendment says, if we do not do
this, then the new tests need not be implemented.
If the States or school districts want to say we do not want to do
this because you have not lived up to your commitment, they do not have
to do it.
I look back because sometimes our staff do the best work. So I am
looking back at Jill Morningstar to make sure I am right about this.
Now just a little bit about what this really is all about. This is
the heart of the debate. Right now, title I is a program for children
from disadvantaged backgrounds. It is the major Federal commitment. We
are funding it at a 30-percent level. The title I money is used for
extra reading help. It can be used for prekindergarten. It can be used
to help these children do better.
What this amendment is saying is, it does not do a heck of a lot of
good to test the children all across the country when we have not done
anything to make sure they have the best teachers; that the classes are
smaller; that the buildings are inviting; that they come to
kindergarten ready to learn; that they get additional help for reading.
The testing is a snapshot. It is one piece of the picture. It does
not tell us anything about what happened before or what happens after.
What good does it do to have so many children in America right now who
are crowded into dilapidated buildings, into huge classes, who have
four teachers a year, who do not have the same resources and benefits
as a lot of other children, who come to kindergarten way behind, and we
are going to test them and show that they are not doing well, which we
already know, but we are not going to have the resources to do anything
to help them after they don't do well on the tests. Or even more
importantly, we are not going to have the resources to help them to
make sure that when we hold them accountable, they have the same
opportunity as every other child in America to do well.
I am on fire about this amendment because this is the amendment that
holds people accountable for the words they have been speaking. We must
not separate the lives we live as legislators from the words we speak.
We have been saying that we were going to have the resources, that we
were going to get them to the teachers and the schools and the
children. And that is what this amendment says. This amendment says:
Don't fool people by just doing an authorization.
This was so important what Senator Dodd did, so important what
Senator Collins did, so important that 79 Senators voted for it, but
really what makes a difference is if we go on record and make it
crystal clear that unless we live up to what we already voted for and
provide the money--this would be $24 billion plus in the year 2005--
then in Rhode Island or Minnesota or other States, schools can say: You
didn't provide the money you said you were going to provide. You didn't
provide the resources you said you were going to provide. We choose not
to do the testing.
They should have that option. Otherwise, this testing is an unfunded
mandate. You are setting everybody up for failure.
I will quote a recent study by the Center for Education Policy. Here
is the conclusion:
Policymakers are being irresponsible if they lead the
public into thinking that testing and accountability will
close the gap.
They are right. Do you think by jamming a test down the throats of
every school in every school district in every State in America--by the
way, I am going to ask my conservative friends. I don't get this. Right
now, I haven't made a final decision, but I lean pretty heavily in the
direction that the Federal Government should not do this. I don't know
where the Federal Government gets off telling school districts and
schools they have to test every child age 8, age 9, age 10, age 11, age
12, and age 13. What a reach on the part of the Federal Government.
It is quite one thing to say all of us in America live in a national
community and when it comes to discrimination, when it comes to human
rights, when it comes to civil rights, when it comes to a basic diet
that every child should have, no State, no community should be able to
fall below that. That is one kind of argument. But now we are going to
tell every school district they have to do this? It is absolutely
amazing to me that we are doing so.
The point is, don't anybody believe that the test we make every child
take means that child now is going to have a qualified teacher. It
doesn't do anything about that. A test doesn't reduce class size. A
test doesn't make sure the children come to kindergarten ready. Part of
the crisis in education is the learning gap by age 5. Some children
come to kindergarten, then they go on to first grade, second grade,
third grade. Now we are going to test them, age 8.
One group of children, to be honest with you, actually has had 7
years of school. They came to kindergarten. Then they had the 3 years
plus that. Now they are third graders. Before that, they had 3 years of
enriched child care. They came to kindergarten having been widely read
to. They know colors and shapes and sizes. They know how to spell their
name. They know the alphabet. They are ready to learn. They have had
the education. And then a lot of other children haven't. And they are
behind, way behind. This is during the period of time of the
development of the brain, the most critical time. Then they fall
further behind.
Testing doesn't change any of that. Testing doesn't do anything about
making sure there is the technology there. Testing doesn't do anything
about whether or not you have 40 or 50 kids crowded into a classroom.
But if we were to make a commitment to some title I funding, then we
could get some additional help for reading; some additional help for
after school; for teachers to have assistance helping them with
children, one-on-one help; prekindergarten.
How can Senators possibly vote against this amendment? They can't,
not if they have said they are committed to getting the resources to
these schools.
The Association of American Test Publishers, the people who develop
virtually every large standardized test used in our schools, say the
same thing. I quote from the Association of American Test Publishers:
In sum, assessments should follow, not lead, the movement
to reform our schools.
What they are saying is that the testing is supposed to assess the
reform. The testing isn't the reform. And the reform is whether or not
we are going to have the resources to make sure these children have a
chance to do well.
Senators, if we are going to say that it will be a national mandate
that every child in America will be tested and we will hold the
children and the schools and everyone else accountable,
[[Page S5928]]
then it should be a national mandate that every child should have the
same opportunity to learn and do well in America. That is what this
amendment is about.
I ask unanimous consent that a letter from the Democratic Governors'
Association be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See Exhibit 1.)
Mr. WELLSTONE. They say:
While we are pleased to support the Carnahan Nelson
amendment, we are hopeful that any final version of
legislation to reauthorize ESEA will apply a funding trigger
more broadly, specifically to include title I. This is the
main source of federal assistance for disadvantaged students
and the federal government needs to back its efforts to
strengthen accountability with adequate new investment.
These Governors are saying this is part of your major Federal
commitment. With all due respect, you have to back accountability with
new investment, and we support the idea of this trigger amendment.
They are absolutely right. For some reason, these Governors are a
little worried that we are going to mandate all this testing and then
not live up to our commitment of resources, for very good reason.
I would like to quote from an article given to me by my good friend
from Florida, Senator Graham. This is by a Walter R. Tschinkel. He
discusses Florida's system of grading schools. The Presiding Officer is
one of the people in the Senate most immersed in education. What does
Mr. Tschinkel find is the single most important variable in determining
how children do on test scores? Would anybody here be real surprised to
hear that it is poverty? He found that for every percent that poverty
increases, the school score drops by an average of 1.6 points. He
showed that the level of poverty in a school in Florida predicted what
the school's achievement score would be with 80-percent accuracy.
May I ask, what are we doing here with this bill that is called BEST?
What are we doing? We are not doing anything to reduce poverty. We
have not made any commitment to title I money being there, which is
what this amendment calls for. We are not doing anything when it comes
to a commitment in prekindergarten and child care.
We are still funding Early Head Start at the 3-percent level and Head
Start for 3- and 4-year-olds at the 50-percent level.
We are not doing anything about rebuilding crumbling schools. Shame
on us.
We are not doing anything about reducing class size. Shame on us.
Now what we are going to do is test these children and show these
children in America again how little we care about them.
I have to cool down. It would be better if we had some debate. I want
to hear how people justify not providing resources.
I am not surprised by a recent study by the Education Trust Fund
which shows the extent of the gap between low-income and high-income
districts. There are not too many Senators who have children in low-
income districts.
The study found that nationally low-poverty school districts spend an
average of $1,139 more than high-poverty school districts. In 86
percent of the States, there is a spending gap favoring wealthier
students. The widest gap is in New York where the wealthiest districts
spend on average $2,794 more per student.
As the Center for Educational Policy concludes:
Policymakers on the State and national levels should be
wary of proposals that embrace the rhetoric of closing the
gap but do not help build the capacity to accomplish this
goal.
That is what this amendment is about. This testing is nothing but the
rhetoric of closing the gap. We are not closing the gap because we are
not providing the resources. This amendment says we go on record, we
are committed, we are going to say to any State and school district: If
we do not live up to our commitment and provide the resources in 2005,
which we have gone on record in supporting, then you do not have to do
the testing.
This amendment starts to take us in the direction of putting the
money where our mouth is. Seventy-nine Senators agreed to authorize
title I so that it would be fully funded in 10 years. Seventy-nine
Senators should support this amendment.
By the way, I am being pragmatic. I do not even understand why we are
not providing the funding now. Why 10 years? What good does it do a 7-
year-old to provide funding in 10 years? She will be 17.
Childhood is only once. We should not steal their childhoods. In 10
years we are going to do it. How does that help the 7-year-old? We are
going to test her when she is 8 and show her--surprise--that she is not
doing well, but we may not be helping her for many years later.
I am just starting on this. This is 4 hours of debate now. Next week,
there might be 36 hours of debate on another amendment.
Again, we went on record. We said we were for this authorization.
This amendment just says let's do it. My colleagues say tests have
their place. By the way, I want to also print in the Record--I hope
every Senator will read this. This is a high stakes testing position
statement. This is a statement by health care professionals which
include people such as Robert Coles, a psychiatrist who has
written probably 40 books about children in America. The man has won
every award known to humankind; Alvin Poussaint, another talented
African-American psychiatrist; Debbie Meyer who has done more good work
in inner-city New York City than anybody in the country.
Do my colleagues want to know what they say in the statement? They
say two things. One, which ties into this amendment, is that we must
make sure we live up to the opportunity-to-learn standard; that every
child has the same opportunity to learn.
What I want to point out is they say from a public health point of
view: What are you doing to these kids? They are talking about the
stress on 8-year-olds taking all these tests, and they point out what
is happening to schools.
I do not know; there must be 30 people who have signed this. They are
the best educators, the best child psychologists, award-winning
authors, and they say: What in God's name are you doing to these
children? That is another amendment about testing next week with
Senator Hollings. For right now, at the very minimum, what they are
saying is we ought to at least make sure we provide these children with
the opportunity to learn.
One hundred percent of major city schools use title I to provide
professional development and new technology for students; 97 percent
use title I funds to support afterschool activities; 90 percent use
title I funds to support family literacy and summer school programs; 68
percent use title I funds to support preschool programs.
The Rand Corporation linked some of the largest gains of low- and
moderate-income children doing better in education to investment in
title I.
In my home State of Minnesota, the Brainerd Public School system has
had a 70- to 80-percent success rate in accelerating students in the
bottom 20 percent of their class to the average of their class
following 1 year of intensive title I-supported reading programs.
My colleague, Senator Hatch from Utah, cited important research by
the Aspen Institute:
In the effort to raise the achievement of all American
students, an extremely serious barrier is the huge disparity
in resources for education across districts and States. It is
not unusual for per student expenditure to be three times
greater in affluent districts than poor districts in the same
State.
Mr. President, do you know that in my State of Minnesota, in St.
Paul, schools where we have less than 65 percent of the students who
are eligible for the free or reduced school lunch program, receive no
title I money. We have run out. I could not believe it. I heard the
Secretary of Education and some of my colleagues saying we have spent
all this title I money; we have thrown dollars at the problem.
First of all, we are not funding it but at a 30-percent level and,
second, title I represents about one-half of 1 percent of all the
education dollars that are spent, but it is key in terms of the Federal
Government commitment. I am suggesting that it can make a huge
difference.
The problem is, we have had a dramatic expansion in the number of
children who need help. The GAO study said that, but a lot of States,
such as
[[Page S5929]]
the State of Minnesota, in a school that has 64 percent of the children
who are low income or who qualify for the reduced or free school lunch
program get no help. Can my colleagues believe that?
I want to quote from Linda Garrett who is assistant director of title
1 programs in the St. Paul schools. This is the irony of what we are
doing. We are pounding ourselves on the chest. This is bumper-sticker
politics. It is called the BEST. Test every child, say we are for
accountability, and we are not going to provide the resources for the
children, all the children, to have the same opportunity to do well. It
is unconscionable.
Linda Garrett says:
The title I entitlement from the Department of Children and
Families Learning have remained level for the past 2 years,
and we have been notified to expect the same for the next
year. While the funding has remained level, the number of St.
Paul schools entitled to receive title I funding increased
and the number of eligible children increased. In 1998-1999
the per pupil title I funding was $720; 1999-2000, $540;
2000-2001, $515, 2001-2002, we are now going to $445 per
pupil.
We have surpluses; we say we are for children; we say we are for
education; and we are providing less money.
There are 79 Senators who voted for the Dodd-Collins amendment. If
you voted for that amendment, you have to vote for this amendment. It
is almost insulting. We are saying to these parents, we need to test
your children every year so you can understand how they are doing and
what is working and what is not.
We are saying to the teachers: Teachers, you are afraid to be held
accountable, so now we will hold you accountable with these tests.
Teachers are not afraid to be held accountable. And the teachers and
the parents and the schools, especially the schools with low- and
moderate-income children, already know what is working and what is not
working. They already know they don't get the resources. They already
know the children come to kindergarten way behind. They already know
the buildings are dilapidated. They already know the classes are too
large. They already know they don't have beautiful landscaping. They
already know they don't have the support assistance they need from
additional staff. They know all of that. They are just wondering when
we will live up to our words and provide some assistance. That is what
they wonder.
In my opinion, we are playing politics with children's lives. We all
want to have our picture taken next to them; we all want to be in
schools with them; we are all for them except when it comes to reaching
in the pocket and investing in resources.
I believe what we are doing to poor children in America, unless we
pass this amendment, is we are going to test children and show they are
not doing as well. Why would anybody be surprised?
The children in the inner city of south Minneapolis or west St. Paul
are not doing as well as the children in the affluent suburbs with a
huge disparity of resources and a huge disparity of life chances. It is
staring us in the face in terms of what we need to do. We have not made
a commitment to them, and now we are going to club them over the head
with tests and humiliate them. I want Senators to debate me.
I yield the floor and I reserve the remainder of my time.
Exhibit 1
Democratic Governors' Association,
Washington, DC, May 22, 2001.
Hon. Jean Carnahan,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Carnahan: On behalf of the nation's Democratic
Governors, I am writing in support of the amendment being
offered by Senators Carnahan and Nelson to S. 1, the Better
Education for Students and Teachers Act (BEST). This
amendment would ensure that the federal government meets its
commitment to states by fully funding the cost of the new
Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) testing
requirements.
The amendment would replace the $400 million cap authorized
for FY 2002 for developing and implementing tests, in the
underlying bill, instead requiring the federal government to
pay 100% of all state testing costs not currently required
under federal law. If the federal government does not meet
this commitment, states would be released from the obligation
to implement the new testing requirements. The amendment
would also require the Secretary of Education to annually
calculate the total costs of testing.
In addition, the amendment would add a protection that
would prohibit the federal government from sanctioning a
state for falling behind schedule in designing and
implementing tests if the federal government has not provided
full funding.
While we are pleased to support the Carnahan/Nelson
amendment, we are hopeful that any final version of
legislation to reauthorize the ESEA will apply a funding
trigger more broadly, specifically to include Title I. This
is the main source of federal assistance for disadvantaged
students and the federal government needs to back its efforts
to strengthen accountability with adequate new investment.
We would also prefer that final legislation link federal
funding accountability to consequences imposed on states and
local schools unable to meet proposed annual performance
measures, such as fiscal sanctions and school reorganization.
Relieving states from the cost of implementing new tests does
not alter the mandated levels of improvement in student
performance.
Democratic Governors urge Congress to fulfill the historic
commitment to America's children that the BEST Act represents
by fully funding authorized levels for IDEA, Title I, and
teacher quality, as well as for testing. We believe that the
Carnahan-Nelson amendment helps to ensure this, and we urge
that the Senate adopt the amendment.
Sincerely,
Gov. Tom Vilsack,
State of Iowa,
DGA Vice-Chair of Policy.
Mr. FRIST. How much time is under the agreement on either side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 2 hours under the control of each
side.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Wellstone
amendment. I look forward to the debate over the next several hours. I
think the amendment comes back to some of the fundamental questions
asked about this bill. It will give Members on both sides of the aisle
the opportunity to address the fundamental concept of the bill, the
structure of the bill, the why of the bill.
It comes down to accountability, to flexibility, being able to figure
out what the problems are. We all recognize there is a problem with
education in this country. After diagnosing it, we need to intervene in
a way that we can truly leave no child behind.
This amendment addresses two issues: the whole concept of
accountability using assessments and dollars and cents. The amendment
states that no State shall be required to conduct any assessments in
any school year by 2005 if the amount appropriated to carry out this
part for fiscal year 2005 is not equal to or exceeds $24 billion.
That summarizes the amendment. It can be broken into two arguments.
One is money and how important money is, and is money the answer. The
other is assessment and the testing. It is a useful component of what
is proposed by President Bush and what is in the underlying bill today,
as amended, accountability and assessment--that measuring success or
failure is important if you want to intervene and make a difference.
The Senator from Minnesota asked essentially the question, as he
addressed those issues, why test if we already know children won't do
well? There is not much disagreement today over whether we are leaving
children behind. That has been the thrust of what President Bush
campaigned on, the thrust of the principles for education reform he has
given to this body, and the thrust of the underlying BEST bill. I
thought, as a body of Congress, we generally agreed it is important to
make a diagnosis if we are going to improve our student's education.
The comment of the Senator from Minnesota is, why test somebody if
you know they are not doing well? The implied corollary is, forget the
test, dump more money and make that cure the system--as if throwing
more money will make sure we leave no child behind.
On the first part of that argument, I think testing is important. I
say that as somebody who has a certain parallel, and the parallel of my
life, obviously, is medicine. The symptoms are there. The symptoms
today are, we are failing, by every objective measurement we use today,
versus our counterparts in other countries internationally. Whether we
look at the 4th grade or the 8th grade or the 12th grade, we are
failing as a society in educating our children. I suppose that is what
the Senator from Minnesota meant when he said we know we are leaving
children behind.
As a physician, when someone comes to your office and complains of
fatigue,
[[Page S5930]]
they do not feel quite right, perhaps shortness of breath, as a
physician and as a nation, it is hard for you to know how to address
the symptoms of a problem until a diagnosis is made.
We know children are being left behind. By any measure, there is a
huge achievement gap, which is getting worse in spite of more money, in
spite of good intentions, in spite of additional programs. That gap is
getting worse, and we are leaving the underserved behind.
How do we correct that? Our side of the aisle worked with the other
side of the aisle in a bipartisan way, to pass a bill through the
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, that injects strong
accountability into the bill.
I thought we had gone long beyond the accountability argument.
Apparently we have not. I think it is important to go through this
diagnosing, the assessments, so we can intervene and improve the
education of our children. We need to be able to determine through
assessments how well each child progresses, or, unfortunately, does not
progress and falls behind--from the third to the fourth grade; from the
fourth to the fifth grade; from the fifth to the sixth grade; from the
sixth to the seventh; from the seventh to the eighth.
We all know those early years are important. We used to think maybe
you could catch up in college, or in high school you could catch up in
math or in science. I think now there is pretty much agreement if we
need to intervene, we need to intervene early so no child is left
behind.
Why do we need more assessments? If you assess a student in the
seventh grade--say a young girl in the seventh grade--and that test
shows she is not only last in the class, but last in the community. You
find out in the seventh grade that she cannot read because she has been
last in the class, and because she has been ushered along and advanced
from year to year. Or you find she cannot add and subtract in the
seventh grade.
People say: Come on, everybody can read and everybody can do
fundamental math in the seventh grade. But we know from the national
statistics, in the fourth and eighth grade a significant number of our
children are falling behind, both as we compare them to each other and
as we compare them to other people globally, internationally, other
developed nations.
Therefore, I argue it does make sense to have these tests on a yearly
basis from third to eighth grade because you need the continuity. Also
you need tests designed in such a way that they are comparative--you
need to be able to compare what a child has learned in the third grade
with what he or she has learned in the fifth grade versus the seventh
grade versus the eighth grade.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. FRIST. Let me just finish for a few minutes and then I will be
happy to yield. I want to walk through several of these concepts.
As a physician what is it similar to? I mention somebody coming
through that door to see, not Senator Frist, Dr. Frist; they come in
and have these vague complaints. If I don't do tests--I can take a
pretty careful history. But until I do the physical exam, until I do
some tests--noninvasive tests, very simple tests--EKG, a scan called a
MUGA scan, fairly simple tests today--I am not going to be able to
specifically know whether the problem is with the lungs or with the
heart or whether that the problem is due to lack of conditioning or if
it is due to general fatigue.
So if I have the seventh grade girl there, not only should we have
made the diagnosis earlier, but we need a test that can sufficiently
make the diagnosis: Is it mathematics? Is it reading? Is it lack of
resources? Is it lack of an ability to use a computer or type on a
keyboard? We have to make the assessment. Then once, with that patient
coming in, I identify the heart, I know how to intervene. I have taken
the blood pressure, I find it is high blood pressure, there is
something I can do to intervene. But if it is just fatigue, until I
know their blood pressure is up, how can I give a pill to bring the
blood pressure down?
You can argue there is not enough money in the world to treat
everybody's hypertension, and you can argue you cannot give everybody
the full battery of tests and give everybody a heart transplant or
everything they need. But that is not an argument to me, or it defies
common sense to say you should not come back and do the tests in the
first place and ask the question and make the specific diagnosis. In
fact, I argue if you have dollars, or a pool of dollars--it doesn't
even have to be a fixed sum--if you want the best value for that
dollar, instead of taking all that money and throwing it at the fatigue
of the patient with a whole bunch of potential treatments that may make
you feel good, or invent programs to put them in, why not step back,
invest that $1 in making the diagnosis, in figuring out the problem,
because that will set you, I believe, in a much more efficient way to
determine treatment over time.
It means you make the diagnosis early enough so it might prevent that
heart disease from progressing, that fatigue, maybe a little bit of
chest. Maybe, if you diagnose it at age 40 and you find the blood
pressure because you have done the test and you intervene, that stops
the progression of the heart disease and that patient will live longer
because of early intervention. It is therapeutic but also it is
preventive medicine.
I say there is absolutely no difference with how we should address
our education system today--if we look at accountability, we want
better results, we want better value, we are failing, today, to say
assessments are important, measurable results that can be looked at,
that can be used and thrown into our own individual database at a local
level in order to decide how to address that specific problem, whether
it is the seventh grade girl or whether it is a school we see is
failing miserably year after year, in spite of putting more resources
in and getting more teachers and smaller class size and better books
and more technology--that is the only way to get the answer.
Then you start drawing this linkage between dollars. We always hear
from the other side of the aisle--this is a good example. I looked at
this. I don't know if it is $24 million or $24 billion or $24 trillion.
To me, it doesn't matter. But it really drives home the point that
there is a perception that you can throw money at a problem without
making a diagnosis, without figuring out what the fundamental disease
is--not the symptoms, we know what the symptoms are--but without
figuring out what the disease is you will never have enough money.
Although you can always argue for more money and, boy, I tell you, we
have really seen it in this bill. If there is one very valid criticism
of this bill it is that every amendment that comes down here, we come
down to vote on, every amendment coming from the other side requires
more money. It is more money for programs, more money for technology,
more money for teachers, more money for assessments.
Focusing on money as the only response takes the target off what the
American people care about. It takes the spotlight off what the
President of the United States cares about, what the President of the
United States has demonstrated the leadership at the highest levels
about, and that is the child. That is the seventh grade girl who is
sitting in that classroom who is failing and we are not willing to come
in and do the reform.
Reform is a scary word. Reform means change to some people. But we
have to recognize when you say improve accountability, or reform, or
measurable results--all of that basically says we have to change what
we are doing, figure out what is wrong, and fix it. And you cannot just
say throw money at the problem. You have to have the reform. That is
where the assessment, accountability, measurable results, the figuring
out what the problem is, is so critically important.
So to be honest with you, I am not surprised but, as I said earlier,
I thought we had gotten beyond the fact that you have to have strong
accountability in order to know how to improve a situation that we all
know is miserable. It is miserable. Today we are not addressing each
child. Today we are leaving people behind. It is going to take doing
something different. It is going to take bringing true reform to the
table and that is why the assessment comes in.
We cannot argue with what is underlying this amendment, that you
don't
[[Page S5931]]
do the test because somebody has the symptoms. I argue you have to do
the test. That is first and foremost in order to figure out what the
disease is, to treat it, to get the best value for the dollar that we
put in, that we make available. When we hear the rhetoric on the floor
of playing politics with children's lives, they have to be very
careful, again, because the debate is so much further along than where
it was 6 months ago, I think in large part because of President Bush
and his leadership, putting this issue out front.
Let's not use that language of playing politics with children, but
get reform and improvement in the system by putting additional
resources in as we go forward, which this President and this Congress
clearly have shown a willingness to do. But let's not just put more
money in and then do away with tests, which in essence is what this
amendment does.
The latest results of the National Assessment of Educational Progress
have shown--they show it again and again--that money is not the answer
and that new programs are not the answer.
One of the great benefits and advantages and, I think, very good
parts of this bill is that it has an element of consolidation and
streamlining to reduce the regulatory burden, the inefficiencies, and
the sort of deadweight of having hundreds and hundreds of programs out
there--that there is an element of consolidation in the underlying
bill.
We have heard it on the floor again and again. We spent $150 billion
on literally hundreds of Federal elementary and secondary education
programs over the last 35 years. In terms of progress compared to
others, we have not seen it.
That is why this bill is on the floor. That is why it is critical
that we address it in a way that recognizes not just the money but the
modernization, the demanding of accountability, the raising of
expectations for all children, for all schools, and for all teachers.
The answer is not just more dollars.
President Bush really led the debate or led the issue so that now we
are back here debating accountability again and how important that
accountability is. He called for strengthened accountability based on
high State standards. Yes, it is annual testing of all students. And,
yes, it starts with the third grade and goes through the eighth grade.
In the bill, there are also rigorous corrective actions for schools
that fail to meet those standards. Again, Senators have worked very
hard in a bipartisan way to make sure that accountability is fashioned
in such a way that you just do not make the diagnosis but you set up a
system in which there can be early intervention and treatment.
We have several formulas on yearly progress, and indeed in a
bipartisan way the initial formulas we used showed that we needed to
focus a little bit more on the underserved and on the less advantaged.
We changed those formulas just enough, I believe, to appropriately
refocus where it wasn't quite right in this initial underlying bill.
Yes, it is the State that sets the standards. Again, one of the big
fundamental arguments that will come out again and again --and it has
over the last several weeks--is whether it should be Washington, DC, or
the Federal Government running it out of Washington, or whether it be
should at the State, or local, district, or individual level. Again and
again, you can have Republicans saying it should be at the local level,
and on the other side of the aisle--I don't want to overly generalize,
but if you look at the amendments and the way the voting is going, it
is more the answer, here in Washington, A, for more regulations and
programs; and, B, more money--the flip side of where this bill is
moving, and maybe not quite as far as some of us would like. But that
is local control, flexibility at the local level, trusting people back
in counties all across Tennessee and in the State of Tennessee to be
making decisions rather than here in Washington, DC.
Luckily, much of the debate has gone back to that individual child.
That is important because it involves parents. All of us know how
important it is to have parents involved in children's education and
that ultimately nobody cares more about that child than the parent. We
are going to have opportunities later to talk about choice and, if a
child is either failing or if the child is locked in a failing school,
or if a child is locked in a disadvantaged or unsafe school, whether
the parents be given the opportunity to participate in the welfare of
their child by giving them an option to move that child to a safer
school.
We will have an opportunity to come back and debate that either later
this week or next week.
In the same way, when we come to this underlying question of
measuring what one is learning or not learning, I would argue that it
is necessary. We haven't been doing it in the past. We have to make the
diagnosis. Again, it comes back to the individual child. It comes back
to the parent. That is why we need to step in. That is why, when people
use the word ``mandate,'' I think it is important for us to say at
least the value of testing is agreed upon, and the individual child or
that individual parent will know where the deficiencies are and how
they can improve. Is it math--adding or subtracting? Is it science? Is
it how to use a computer? We don't know today.
How we can we intervene and help? How can parents help? Again, I will
bet that will happen, once these assessments have been made available,
that the first people to look at them will be that parent, that school,
and that community. Why? Because the value is there. They will know
that.
Annual testing is simply the only way to get away from the symptoms
of things not going quite right. To be specific, fortunately we know
what can be done.
If you have $1--whatever it is, a Federal, or a local dollar, or a
dollar at school--you know how best to invest that dollar, and not just
throw a dollar at the symptoms. But you will know how to invest that
dollar, and it can be accomplished through this legislation. It is
already in the legislation.
I want to make sure we don't, with this particular amendment, allow
the opportunity to strip away all accountability in the bill. That is
the heart of this bill.
We are going to talk flexibility and local control and decisionmaking
at the local level involving the parents. But the heart of this bill
comes back to accountability.
This amendment basically gives the opportunity to say, let's just cut
the heart out of this bill; let's cut out the accountability
provisions; get rid of it, and we can feel good; and let's in fact
throw a lot more money at it. That is simply not the approach of the
President of the United States, which says spend more money but link it
to modern situations and accountability.
These assessments we talked about before. We allow individual States
to participate. It is not a Federal test.
As I go across the country to talk to people, they ask, Are you doing
a standardized test out of Washington, DC? No. It is coming down at the
local level. These tests are at the State level.
I believe these accountability provisions increase choice for
students. They increase the opportunity to empower people to make
decisions that will benefit their education, again from the standpoint
of the parents, and the education of a family as we go forward so that
we can truly leave no child behind.
Let me simply close by saying that money is not the answer. That is
what we come back to. We talk a lot about the accountability. Money is
important. But as we look to the past, and Federal education, State
education, and local education, spending has increased dramatically.
Total national spending on elementary and secondary education has
increased by about 30 percent over the last 10 years. Federal spending
on secondary and elementary education has increased by 180 percent.
Federal spending is only 6 percent of the overall pie. The Federal role
has increased by 180 percent over the last decade. Over the past 5
years, Federal funding for elementary and secondary programs has
increased by 52 percent.
Yet in spite of all of those increases--people can say that is not
near enough, or maybe some people would say that is way too much--over
time, test scores have been national. The achievement gap between the
served and the underserved, the rich, the poor--however, you want to
measure it--has gotten greater in spite of this increased spending.
[[Page S5932]]
I, for one, believe we are going to have to inject--I agree with the
President of the United States, we are in the short term going to have
to put more into public education K-12 than we have at any time in the
past. I am confident we will do that. The President has said that. This
Congress has said it.
The authorization levels the Senator from Minnesota talked about have
gone sky high, and it looks as if next week they will go higher and
higher. There is no way. There is not enough money around to be able to
fulfill all the pledges that are being made. That is what an
authorization is. But when it comes back to the appropriation process
that works pretty well in this body, I am confident that under the
leadership of this President and the commitment that has been made, we
will put more into education than has been put in in the past.
Again, the debate, I am sure, will go on for several hours. It is a
good amendment to have a debate on because it does link the importance
of accountability with money. It focuses, I believe, on the fact that,
yes, it is going to take some more money, but I do not want to have
this element of--not bribery; that is too strong of a term--but
basically saying, if you cannot meet this figure of $24 billion, we are
going to cut the heart out of the education bill that the American
people believe in, that clearly a group of bipartisan Senators, who put
these accountability provisions in the bill, believe in, and that this
President believes in.
I believe that is a disservice to the underlying bill and to the
intent of what this Congress and this President has in mind; and that
is, to leave no child behind.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota is recognized.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I know my colleague from Nevada needs
to speak, too, so I will just take a couple minutes to respond.
First of all, the Senator from Tennessee talks about the importance
of accountability. I was an educator, a college teacher for 20 years. I
do not give any ground on accountability. The point is not to confuse
accountability, testing, and standardized tests as being one in the
same thing.
We have had two amendments that have been adopted which I think will
at least make the testing, and hopefully the assessment, accurate and
done in a better way.
This amendment does not say that you do not do the testing. I may
have an amendment next week that goes right to the heart of that
question with Senator Hollings, and others, but that is not what this
amendment is about.
Everybody in this Chamber has been saying they are for accountability
and that we are also going to get the resources to the kids. We have to
do both. You can't do this on a tin-cup budget. We have to walk our
talk. Seventy-nine Senators voted for this authorization. But that is a
fiction. It does not mean anything in terms of real dollars.
This amendment says that with the accountability comes the resources.
We make a commitment that, unless we live up to what we said we would
do by way of title I money for our school districts and our children,
then those school districts and States do not have to do the testing.
That is all it says.
That is my first point. So the argument that somehow this is an
amendment that declares null and void testing is just not accurate. I
am just trying to get us to live up to our words.
The second point I want to make is that my colleague said--and I have
to smile--somehow this is all about decentralization, whereas Democrats
tend to look to the Federal Government. I have to tell you one more
time, I do not know where the conservatives are, or whether the whole
political world is being turned upside down, but I seem to find myself
being a Senator who--I have not resolved this question, but at the
moment I do not think it is appropriate that the Federal Government
mandate, tell, insist, require that every school district in America
test every child every year.
This is radical. It is amazing to me. I am surprised others have not
raised this question. Human rights, civil rights, antidiscrimination,
yes, but this? I think we are going to rue the day we did this.
There is a rebellion right now in the country that is developing.
People are going to say: You voted to make us do this? Where did you
get off thinking you were the ones who had the authority to do that? I
think this is a real Federal reach.
My third point is, this is a real disagreement we have with my
colleague from Tennessee. My colleague is a very gifted doctor, and
everybody gives him full credit, of which he richly deserves, but this
is not trying to find out if a child has a heart problem.
Mr. FRIST. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. WELLSTONE. I will be pleased to yield for a question. But with
all due respect, we already know--I have been in a school every 2 weeks
for the last 10\1/2\ years. We know what is not working and what needs
to be done. It is absolutely no secret.
We know that children, when they come to kindergarten, are way
behind. We know children who have had no prekindergarten education. We
know of the dilapidated buildings. We know of the overcrowded
classrooms. We know of kids having three or four teachers in 1 year. We
know of kids who are taught by teachers who aren't certified. We know
kids go without afterschool care. We know of the disparity of resources
from one school district to another. We know what the affluent children
have going for them versus what the poor children have going for them.
We know all that. We know we fund Early Head Start at 2 percent, 3
percent. And we fund Head Start at only 50 percent for 4-year-olds. We
know we fund affordable child care for low-income children where only
10 percent can participate. We know all that.
What do we need to know? Why do we need the test? I ask my colleague
from Tennessee, what I just said, are these not realities? Is there one
thing that I have said that is not a fact, that is not empirical, that
is not a reality in the lives of children in America? If you can tell
me, Paul, there is something you just said that is not accurate, then
you can argue against this amendment. If you cannot, then you cannot.
This amendment does not say no to testing. It just says with the
testing and accountability come resources.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a very brief
question?
Mr. WELLSTONE. I am pleased to yield.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, the question I want to address to my
colleague from Minnesota has to do with the testing. I think it is
worth talking about because I have done the very best I could to make
the case that for the individual child it is important to make the
diagnosis. Just throwing money at it is not going to do it.
The question I would like the Senator to respond to is, having
children assessed from the third to the eighth grade, what is wrong
with that? I will argue you have to do it. And that is my side of the
argument, which I tried to make. But what is wrong with it? Why will we
rue the day that we give the opportunity for a third grader or a fifth
grader or a seventh grader the opportunity to figure out why they are
not being served well? Why do you object to having third, fourth,
fifth, sixth, or seventh graders assessed?
Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank my colleague for the question because then I
think Senators can have a clear picture of the amendment on which we
are going to vote.
This amendment does not say it is wrong to do that. This amendment
does not say it is wrong to do the testing. This amendment does not say
it is wrong to do the testing every year. This amendment says, if you
are going to have a Federal mandate that every child is going to be
tested every year, you better also have a Federal mandate that every
child is going to have the same opportunity to do well.
One of the major commitments we have not made is the title I money.
That is why the Governors in their letter said we favor this trigger
amendment. We want to make sure that they also, with the tests, get the
resources. That is all this amendment says.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for another brief
question?
Mr. WELLSTONE. I am pleased to yield.
Mr. FRIST. First, the Senator from Minnesota just said he thinks we
will rue the day we decided to assess the
[[Page S5933]]
students. My assumption was that he feels all students should not be
tested, that we already know what the problem is. I thought that was
what he said. And I asked him was he against the assessment because
there was not enough money going for it, but that he agrees assessments
are the right way to go? If so, that is very important. I do not
believe that is what he implied in his earlier comments.
Mr. WELLSTONE. I say to my colleague, fair enough. I will say to my
colleague publicly, I have a couple different views.
First, the amendment. First, let's be clear about the amendment. The
amendment, you will be pleased to know, does not say no to testing at
all--not at all. It simply says we ought to live up to our commitment
on the resources. That is all. That is all it says. That is it. If we
do not, it says to States: Look, if you do not want to do it, you do
not have to. That is the amendment.
Above and beyond that, I will say two other things to my colleague
from Tennessee, who I know has shown a very strong interest in
education over the years. In our State--I am sure it is the case in
Tennessee--we are doing the testing. In fact, by the way, by what we
passed for title I several years ago, we are just starting to get the
results of that testing, for which I voted. We are doing the testing.
The only thing I am telling you is that there is a difference between
our school districts and our States deciding they want to do it because
it is the right thing to do and the Federal Government telling them
they have to do it. I just think it is an important distinction. I do
not know where I come down on that final question yet. I just think it
raises an important philosophical question.
Then the second point I make is that there is also a distinction
between what we did several years ago with title I, which is a Federal
program, saying we also want to see the testing and the accountability
versus telling every school district in Tennessee and every school
district in Minnesota you will test every child every year--not every
other year--but every year. That is sweeping.
My amendment is not about that question. I just raised that question.
I haven't resolved that question. I will tell you one thing I have
resolved, which is what this amendment is about. The worst thing we can
do is to pretend we don't know what the problems are and not make the
commitment with both the IDEA program and title I, which are two of our
major program resources, so that we basically set everybody up for
failure. That is the worst thing we can do.
If you want to argue that money is not a sufficient condition, I
agree. I think it is a necessary addition. We can go through the Rand
Corporation assessment of title I and other assessments of title I
programs. I can talk about Minnesota. You can talk about Tennessee. A
lot of these resources are key to prekindergarten, key to extra reading
help, key to afterschool programs. This is really important. That is
all this amendment says.
Did I answer my colleague's question?
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Stabenow). The Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. FRIST. Madam President, I would like to ask the Senator to
clarify again. The amendment is set up such that if $24 billion is not
appropriated--for people not in the Senate, that is where much of the
action really is, and I agree with the Senator in terms of the
importance of appropriations and authorization--this President has
basically said he is going to put more money into education than any
other President has in the past. I think that is important.
But from the assessment end, the ransom for the assessments is that
if $24 billion is not appropriated, the amendment cuts the heart out of
the education reform bill, which means we will not be able to determine
with assessments whether that seventh grade girl has learned how to
read.
I am asking, if it is really just the money, why is he linking it to
the heart and soul of the bill?
Mr. WELLSTONE. We have a letter from the Democratic Governors that
says:
[Above and beyond] the Carnahan/Nelson amendment, we are
hopeful the final version of the legislation to reauthorize
ESEA will apply a funding trigger more broadly, specifically
to include title I. This is the main source of federal
assistance for disadvantaged students, and the Federal
Government needs to back its efforts to strengthen
accountability with adequate new investment.
The reason they are tied together is that they go together, for God's
sake. You can't test every child without also making sure these
children have an opportunity to do well on the tests. Of course, they
go together. This amendment simply says that the tests authorized need
not be implemented until after the title I appropriation has reached
the level we said.
We said, 79 of us, we are going to appropriate this money; we are
going to make sure that with the accountability comes the resources for
the kids to do well. We went on record.
Now I have this amendment that says we make the commitment to
Minnesota, Michigan, Tennessee, and everywhere else, if we don't live
up to our end of the bargain and you decide you don't want to do the
test, you don't have to. By the way, many States are doing it. It is up
to them.
I am becoming a decentralist. I am becoming the conservative
Republican in this debate, apparently.
Mr. FRIST. My great fear is, if this amendment passes, let's say we
put $22 billion in, you have destroyed the accountability, the heart
and soul of this bill, the opportunity to give that seventh grader the
opportunity to have the diagnosis made of why she is failing.
I don't understand the relationship. Why would you punish the child
and eliminate the opportunity to diagnose her problems based on
funding? Again, why would one hold this ransom for, again, huge amounts
of money, if you are not trying to link the two directly? Unless you
are trying to bring down the whole bill.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, if I wanted to try to bring down the
whole bill, I would have an amendment out here to bring down the whole
bill. Maybe I will, and it won't be successful. I am still trying to
actually improve the bill, just as we did on testing. I say to my
colleague, we already have accountability with title I. That is law
right now that is on going.
My second point is, this is an honest difference. My colleague's
concern is that we won't have a test, that somehow that will be nixed.
My concern is that if we just do the tests and make every school, every
school district, every child take the test every year, 8, 9, 10, 11,
12, and 13, but we do not live up to our end of the bargain of
providing the resources so that the children can do well on the test--
extra help for reading, prekindergarten, after school--then the only
thing we have done is we have set them up for failure. I don't want to
do that. I think that is cruelty.
I cite again the study from Senator Graham which showed that poverty
predicts 80 percent of the students' scores right now. I am not
surprised. I have been to school every 2 weeks for the last 10\1/2\
years. I know that. So far, I haven't heard any compelling reasons
against this.
For Democrats, our party, we have been out publicly saying that we
are committed to the resources that go with the testing. It is time to
walk the talk.
I know there are going to be some other Senators who will speak. I
want to go on to another aspect of this. I have spent some time on
this, but this is a little different. This has to do with why testing
actually can do more harm than good if we don't give the schools the
resources to do better. I have not made that argument yet.
I will start out quoting the Committee for Economic Development,
which is a strong protesting coalition of business leaders who warn
against test-based accountability systems that lead to narrow test-
based coaching rather than rich instruction. I will tell you what
happens. We don't give the schools the resources. In this particular
case, I am talking about title I. That is a real commitment on our
part. They are going and you are going to do the testing, and the
testing is also going to determine consequences for those schools,
whether they are sanctioned, whether principals are removed.
Do you know what happens when they don't have the resources and this
is what you do? It leads, I say as a teacher--I am not a doctor; my
colleague is a doctor--it leads to the
[[Page S5934]]
worst kind of education. Do you know what they are going to do? It is
what they are doing right now. You drop social studies. You drop
poetry. You don't take the kids to the art museum. And you have drilled
education where the teachers are teaching to the tests because they are
under such duress. That is exactly what happens.
For example, in Washington State, a recent analysis by the Rand
Corporation showed that fourth grade teachers shifted significant time
away from arts, science, health and fitness, social studies,
communication and listening skills because they were not measured by
the test.
I do not know if I am making the case the way I want to make the
case, but the schools that are going to be under duress are the ones
where the children have not had the same opportunity to learn. They
came to kindergarten way behind, and we are not making a commitment to
early childhood.
Now what happens is because of this--and I see my colleague from New
Jersey, and I will finish in 3 minutes so he can speak; I thank him for
being here--now because of this duress, what we have is these schools
are dropping social studies, art, trips to museums because they are not
tested and the teachers are being asked to be drill instructors.
Guess what. Some beautiful, talented teachers are leaving teaching
today because of this. This is crazy. We better give them the
resources.
I say to my colleague from New Jersey, this is a classic example. The
Stevens Elementary School in Houston pays as much as $10,000 a year to
hire Stanley Kaplan to teach teachers how to teach kids to take tests.
According to the San Jose Mercury, schools in East Palo Alto, which is
one of the poorest districts in California, paid Stanley Kaplan $10,000
each to consult with them on test-taking strategies.
According to the same articles, schools across California are
spending thousands to buy computer programs, hire consultants, and
purchase workbooks and materials. They are redesigning spelling tests
and math tests all to enable students to be better test takers.
Forget sense of irony. Forget childhood. Forget 8-year-olds
experiencing all the unnamed magic of the world before them. Forget
teaching that fires the imagination of children. Drill education to
taking tests: it is educationally deadening. That is another reason why
without the resources this is not a big step forward. This is a huge
leap backwards.
Madam President, I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my
time. My colleague may want to respond.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. FRIST. If I can take 2 or 3 minutes. Madam President, as I
spelled out earlier, this amendment is the heart of what President Bush
put on the table: strong accountability to ensure that we do not leave
any child behind.
If this amendment is adopted, we are in a significant way putting at
risk the entire bill because accountability is the heart and soul of
the bill. This is where I think the real progress will be made; that
is, making the diagnosis so we know how to invest education dollars and
resources. This is the spirit of reform.
All of it depends on knowing where students are and being able to
follow their progress over time so we can intervene at an appropriate
time.
It is interesting. We talk about dollars. We will be talking about
assessments and dollars, and in the amendment they are linked together.
I do not think some sort of ransom should be placed over this bill. We
have the appropriations process that is going to deal with the reforms
we put into place.
If we go back to 1994, the Democrats passed a law which required
States to develop broad comprehensive reforms in content, curriculum,
and performance standards. To align those reforms with all of the new
assessments, much more would need to be added to the bill we are
debating today.
Immediately after passage of that law, the President's request in
1994 for discretionary education funding included a $484 million
spending cut. The Democratic President's request to cut spending was
coupled with those new reforms. In the end, the Democratic Congress
passed an appropriations bill that contained a tiny 0.012-percent
increase. That is tiny. That is essentially flat, and therefore
provided no new funding for those new reforms.
I say all of that because they established new reforms in assessments
and testing but did not match investment with assessments. This is the
issue we have been talking about the last couple of hours.
The provisions in this bill are more modest. I favor what is in the
bill now. I favor the principles the President put on the table, and I
think we are going to benefit children greatly with it. We have the
commitment of the President of the United States and at least this side
of the aisle to increase education funding by 11 percent. It may be a
little bit less; it may be a little bit more, but it will be about 11
percent.
It is ironic to me as we talk about assessments and measurements,
that the broad reforms in 1994 under different leadership had
essentially flat funding. Yet under this President, we have reforms
which are not quite as ambitious in terms of testing, but we have an
increase in education funding of over 11 percent. People ought to
remember this historic perspective as we continue this debate.
I am thankful for the opportunity to talk about the assessments, the
heart of this bill. Again, money is not the answer. We have tried it
for the last 35 years, and we are failing. We are failing our students;
we are failing the next generation. We have to couple reform with a
significant increase in spending to which we have agreed.
I yield the floor.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, 2 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. WELLSTONE. First, for my colleague to say if Senators vote for
this, the testing might not take place is as much as saying, therefore,
we are not going to live up to our word. If my colleagues vote for this
amendment, the testing will take place because I assume we are going to
live up to our word. Seventy-nine of us already voted for this.
All this amendment says is we are going to be clear to States and
school districts that we are going to live up to our commitment of
resources. That is the first point.
The second point--my colleague from Tennessee left--to say this is
more modest than in 1994, my God, we are telling every school district
in every State they have to test every child, every year, ages 8, 9,
10, 11, 12, 13. That is not modest in scope.
At the very minimum, transitioning to the Senator from New Jersey,
what I am saying is, if we are going to have a national mandate of
every child being tested, then we ought to have a national mandate of
every opportunity for every child to do well. I reserve the remainder
of my time.
Mr. CORZINE. Madam President, I could not agree more with my
distinguished Senate colleague and friend from Minnesota. I rise in
support of his amendment which ensures we not only test our kids, but
we actually provide promised resources we have talked about over and
over in this body to improve educational quality. He believes and I
believe, and I think common sense argues, that unfunded mandates that
are put upon our local school districts only aggravate disparities we
already have about how our children are educated. We ought to make sure
we start putting money where we are putting mandates on our
communities.
Before I discuss the amendment, let me thank Senator Wellstone for
his leadership on a whole host of these educational matters. It is
terrific how he has spoken out about leaving no child behind. I am very
grateful for his dedication to quality education for all of our kids,
and I am sure the country benefits.
I agree we need to build more accountability into the system.
Students, teachers, and administrators need to be held accountable for
results. I come from the business world. We look at bottom lines. We
ought to get to stronger and stronger results. Congress should be held
accountable, too, and that is the purpose of this amendment.
Accountability measures focused only on our kids, schools, teachers,
and administrators just do not seem enough to assure that our children
get an adequate education.
[[Page S5935]]
As the Senator from Minnesota has spoken about several times today,
79 Senators supported an amendment to increase the authorization for
the title I provisions in this bill to move that up to $24 billion-plus
in the year 2005. Seventy-nine Senators voted in support of that. With
that vote, we made a promise to millions of children who live in
disadvantaged areas that those promises of better schools and greater
opportunities would be real. We need to make sure that was not an empty
promise, political rhetoric, or cynical posturing.
We have been underfunding the title I program for years. Never in the
entire history of the program, which began in 1965, has Congress fully
funded the program. Then we hear we are not getting the results we are
supposed to be getting when we do not put the resources that actually
deliver the goods on preschool or afterschool programs or reading
programs and the other issues about which people are talking. We
complain but we do not put the resource there to make sure we can
deliver in those places where they don't have the resources to provide
the educational opportunities other places in the country have.
We have seen the educational dollar that the Federal Government
provides for education shrink from 12 cents to 7 cents, with some talk
about 6 cents. We shrink that and we wonder why we get disparate
results.
Title I is a critical program if we are to ensure all children in our
society are provided with meaningful educational and economic
opportunity. Title I is the engine of change for low-income school
districts across this country. The program is used to train teachers,
to provide new technology for students, to support literacy and
afterschool programs, and to promote preschool programs, a whole host
of items that will make a difference and to make sure every child has a
comparable education from one community to the next.
Together, these initiatives have proven effective where they have
been applied, raising test scores and improving educational
achievement. But we have to have the resources. It has been underfunded
for far too long and too many kids have been left behind. The engine of
reform needs fuel.
Let me be clear. I support testing. I think it is a good idea. I am
not sure much of what we are putting in place is a good idea, but I
support testing. By itself, testing is not enough. I am sure it gets
our priorities right. What good does it do to test kids if we do not
provide the tools needed to respond to bad test results and, more
importantly, even prepare for the tests. It would be similar to
diagnosing an illness and refusing to prescribe the drugs needed to
cure it. That does not make sense.
This amendment stands simply for truth in legislation. It is easy for
Congress to authorize funding for programs. It makes political
campaigning a lot easier to go out and say: I stood in there and I
stood for authorizing title I funds for all our kids. Many people in
the country hear we have done that and they think we have fully funded
it. As my colleagues know, an authorization is little more than a
promise, and all too often it is an empty promise.
In my view, when it comes to providing quality education for all of
our children, we need to make sure the promise is real. We need to put
the money where the authorizing words state they should be. We must
provide our schools with the resources to help students achieve their
full potential. We must address the glaring disparity in resources that
undermines America's sense of fairness and equal opportunity. We want
to hold every child to high standards. We must provide every child with
the opportunity to meet them. We have to hold ourselves to high
standards.
I urge my colleagues to support the amendment of the Senator from
Minnesota. Let's test our kids but get real and provide the resources
we have been promising to ensure quality education for all.
Mr. WELLSTONE. I will give the Senate a bit of background. This
amendment tracks the amendment that Senator Dodd worked on with Senator
Collins. The Senate went on record--79 Senators--saying we would make
this commitment to title I and over a 10-year period we would have
funding.
I don't think the Senator would disagree, as much as I was for it, in
some ways I very much regret we could not have said full funding in 1
year. For a 7-year-old, 10 years is too late.
In any case, this amendment says by 2005 the Senate went on record
saying we ought to be spending $25 billion on title I because that puts
us on track for full funding, gets more resources to schools and our
children, more help for reading. It can be prekindergarten; it can be
technology; it can be more professional training for teachers; it can
be afterschool programs.
This amendment says, if we do not live up to our commitment, the
States and school districts, if they do not want to do the testing, do
not have to. It is up to them. No one is telling them they can't do it,
but it is entirely up to them. We have been saying over and over and
over again, with accountability comes resources. I wanted to give my
colleague a bit of background.
My other point is, if we are going to have a mandate of every child
being tested, we better also have a national mandate of every child
having the same opportunity to do well. Since the title I program is
one of the major ways we at the Federal level make a commitment to low-
income, disadvantaged children, we ought to live up to our word. That
is what this amendment says.
I yield the floor.
Mr. DODD. I thank my good friend and colleague from Minnesota and
express my appreciation to him for raising this amendment. This is not
a unique approach. We have taken on matters where we linked financing
with obligations. One of the constant complaints we receive as Members
when we return home to our respective States and speak with our mayors
and Governors, our local legislators, we often hear, regardless of the
jurisdiction--Minnesota, Connecticut, Michigan, New Hampshire,
Massachusetts--you folks in Washington like to tell us what we need to
do, but you rarely come up with the resources to help us do what you
tell us we have to do.
We have gone through an extensive debate as part of this discussion
on special education. We made a commitment as the Federal Government
years ago that said every child ought to have the opportunity for a
full education, as much as they are capable of achieving, and that
special education students would be a part.
We promised we would meet 40 percent of the cost of that as a result
of a Federal requirement. That commitment was made 25 years ago. It
took 25 years, until just recently, as a result of the efforts of the
Senator from Massachusetts, the Senator from Vermont, Mr. Jeffords,
Senator Collins, my colleague from Minnesota, and many others, who said
we were going to have to meet that obligation, financially supporting
the special education needs of the country. As a result of their
efforts, we have included in this bill a mandatory spending requirement
to meet those obligations.
I raised the issue about 12 years ago in the Budget Committee and
lost on a tie vote.
Why do I bring that up and discuss it in the context of this
amendment? If we fail to adopt this amendment that the Senator from
Minnesota has suggested, in 5, 10, 15 years, we will have a similar
demand made by the very people asking us today to fulfill the financial
obligations that we owe as a result of mandating special education
needs.
People may not like that comparison, but that is a fact. We are
saying to these students, across the country, disregarding States and
in a sense localities, here are some standards we expect you to meet.
We are willing to authorize, as we did by a vote of 79-21, some
substantial sums of money to allow for full funding of title I as a
result of the heroic efforts of my friend and colleague from Maine,
Senator Collins, along with 78 others in this Chamber. We went on
record, with a rather overwhelming vote. This was not a 51-49 vote.
Almost 80 Members of the body said full funding of title I is something
we ought to do.
If this bill is going to work, we ought to fully fund this program.
We said over 10 years.
I would have preferred if it was a more brief period of time, but we
have to accept the realities. I think it is important to note that it
occurred. It is a
[[Page S5936]]
true expression of the desire of Members here, regardless of party or
ideology. As a result of the demands we will make in this legislation,
we are fully prepared to do something that kids on the corner often say
to each other: Put your money where your mouth is.
We have had a pretty good mouth when it comes to telling the country
what they ought to do. The question is whether or not we will put the
money up to back up and support the demands we are making here.
I think the amendment offered is one that is important. It says,
obviously, if you want to live up to those commitments--we are asking
schools to be accountable, to be responsible--then we should as well.
We cannot very well demand a third grader be responsible or fourth
grader or fifth grader or some impoverished rural district or urban
district--as we demand accountability from a superintendent of schools,
a principal, a teacher--and then we duck our responsibility here.
There is a long and painful history where demands have been made by
this government on our localities and our States and then we have
failed to back up those demands by failing to provide the resources to
accomplish them.
This is about as critical an area as can be, education. I do not want
to see us coming out of this with a self-fulfilling prophecy of
failure. I don't want us to know going in, as a result of the paucity
of resources, that young children living in some of the toughest areas
of the country are deprived of the resources necessary so they can
maximize their potential. As we begin this testing process, year in and
year out, as we watch the scores not improving because the title I
funds are not there--and by the way they work. Title I funds work as we
know based on all sorts of examinations and studies that have been
done. Therefore, it seems to me we want to have funding.
My colleagues and I were at recent meetings at the White House. I
don't believe we should go into the details of those meetings. The
President was gracious enough to invite us to those. He cares about
education a lot. I have no doubt that President Bush cares about it. He
made that point when he was Governor. He provided evidence of it. He
has spoken out about it numerous times and gone to schools all across
the country. So the fact that we are of different political parties or
persuasions is not the point, obviously. I am willing to believe that
his slogan that he used a lot during the campaign of ``leave no child
behind'' is sincerely and deeply felt.
All I am suggesting, as are the Senator from Minnesota and others who
support this, is to see those achievements. I believe this President
wants to see these kids do better. That is what we all want.
We spend less than 2 percent of the entire Federal budget on
elementary and secondary education--less than 2 percent. I think that
would probably come as a shock to most Americans who send their tax
dollars to Washington to discover that less than 2 cents on every
dollar the Federal Government spends actually goes to elementary and
secondary education. I am excluding higher education.
We have all heard the speeches given around the country of how
important this is, that any nation that ever expects to improve or grow
has to have an educational system that creates the opportunities for
its people. So this is about as important an issue as there is. When
you talk about economic growth, economic stability, education is about
as important an issue as you can discuss. If we fail to have an
educated generation, all the rhetoric, all the decisions by the Federal
Reserve Board, all the decisions by the Treasury, all the decisions
made by Wall Street, will not mean a lot if we do not have an educated
population able to fill the jobs and perform the work needed to keep
this economy and our country strong.
This is the first step. If we get this wrong, then the likelihood we
will succeed at every other point is reduced dramatically, in my view.
I do not think that is a unique perspective. I suspect if you were to
ask the 100 Members of this body whether or not you could have true
economic development and true economic stability and success without a
strong educational system, I do not know of a single Member of this
body who would accept that as a likely conclusion.
What we are saying is, if that is the case, then should we not link
this issue of providing the resources necessary to the title I program,
which has proved to be so successful, and to say that before we start
demanding these tests and so forth we are going to see to it that these
young people, and these communities, are going to have the resources to
get the job done? That, it seems to me, is only fair and right. If the
resources are not going to be there, does anyone doubt, can anyone
stand up and say if the resources are not there, that these children,
the most needy in the country--in rural and urban America, most of
them--are going to be able to do better on these tests?
If you do not have the resources to make these environments better,
there is no doubt about the outcomes. You are not going to hire the
teachers who are qualified. You are not going to have the tools
necessary. That is just a fact.
There is more empirical evidence to support that statement than
anything I know of. Over and over again we are told it will not work if
you do not have the tools. No matter how strong the desire, no matter
how ambitious these parents or these children may be, they have to have
the tools. You cannot be in a classroom with 40 kids and learn. A
teacher cannot teach.
You cannot get ready for the 21st century economy without a wired
school and the ability to access the technology available.
You cannot have teachers who know nothing about the subject matter
teaching math, science or reading. They cannot do it. Don't expect a
child anywhere to learn under those circumstances.
The fact is, in more schools around the country, those are the
realities. I wish I could magically wave a wand and automatically
guarantee that there will be these tools available. But none of us
possesses that kind of power. You have to have the resources to do it.
So to go out and test a bunch of kids who have not had the support
and backing necessary for them to be accurately tested has structured a
very cruel arrangement for this Congress and this administration to
impose. It is going to produce predictable results. So I think the
Senator from Minnesota has properly asked us to do what any mayor, any
Governor, any school board or principal or superintendent would ask of
us. I think what they are saying to us--my colleague from Minnesota can
correct me--they are saying: Look, we accept the challenge you imposed
on us. I know my friend from Minnesota and I have heard from a number
of people who have questioned the wisdom of this annual testing idea as
a way of somehow proving whether or not kids are doing better. I get
very uneasy about what teachers are going to be teaching. It is what I
call turning our schools into test prep centers where you spend half
the year or more of it getting the kids ready to do well on the tests
because the teachers, the superintendent, the principal, the Governor--
everybody wants to look good and pass the test. I don't know whether
you learn anything or not, but you pass the test. I get nervous about
an educational system that is more geared to passing some test so more
of the ``political'' people can have bright stars attached to their
names.
I think testing is valuable, but your educational system is geared
toward those testing requirements rather than educating children. I
certainly think math and reading are very important--but I also think
science is important, I think history is important, I think geography
is important, I think languages are important. My fear is in some ways
we are going to get so focused on a couple of disciplines which are
critical--very critical, essential, Madam President--but at the expense
of a lot of other areas which are also critical for the full and proper
development of a child's educational needs.
You do not have to be an educational genius to know what can happen
if you are just geared to getting the class to pass the Federal test in
order to keep the school open. I am very worried about that.
But I will put that aside. I will put my worries aside for a minute.
I am not the only one worried. This is not just Democrats and
Republicans who
[[Page S5937]]
are worried. I think parents out there who may not know all the nuances
of this bill are worried. People who work hard in school every day will
tell you they know what they are going to end up doing. But we will put
that aside for a second.
At the very least, if we are going to demand this in tests, it seems
we have to have the kid prepared, at least give them a chance to do
well.
If the resources are not there for them to do well, then I think we
all know what the results are going to be. That is really what this
amendment is all about. Maybe it is more complicated than that. But I
don't think it is.
Take the environment, or transportation, or any subject you want. No
one would suggest that you can anticipate high performance without the
resources being there to help you achieve it. Yet in the education
field we seem to be indulging in a fiction that somehow we can set the
standard and demand the test, hold back the resources, and expect the
students to reach it. I don't know where else you could ever imagine
that kind of result to occur.
We seem to be anticipating 50 million children around America, if the
bill is passed and signed by the President shortly thereafter, having
to meet these tests. It is fewer than 50, because we are talking about
grades 3-8. Whatever that number is of kids in elementary and secondary
school--perhaps it is 30 million who are in our elementary schools. So
30 million kids will start to be tested. You are not going to have the
resources necessary to help the hardest hit schools in America ensure
that the children are well prepared.
I realize this amendment is troublesome to people. They prefer that
we don't demand this. But just as we demanded special education for
children without resources, until finally people were banging on the
doors of Washington and saying, ``You people promised to help us do
this,'' I suggest we get ahead of their argument and provide the
resources as a result of the amendment of the Senator from Minnesota,
and then go forward with it.
I am prepared to support this. But I say to my friend from Minnesota,
as hesitant as I am about supporting testing in the third, fourth,
fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth grades--by the way, if it were one
test, I wouldn't mind. This is Federal. Forget about the State and
local. On average, there are about five tests that kids have to go
through during a year. I am willing to accept that. But I have the
outrageous demand that we provide the resources to these schools so
these kids have a chance to demonstrate what they are capable of.
If you are telling me that I can't have the resources to at least
give them a chance to prove how bright they can be, don't ask me to
require a kid to take a test that they can't possibly pass and set them
up for failure in life.
We only debate this bill once every 6 years. I suspect many of us on
the floor today may not be here the next time the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act is debated. If it were debated every year, I
might wait until next year to try it. But if we don't provide the
funding in the language here that provides for it, a half a decade or
more will go by before we are back again discussing this.
I don't want in this last debate for the next 5 or 6 years, where we
mandate this testing and mandate these standards from Washington to
every school district in America, to then stick our hands in our
pockets and walk away and tell them we are not going to give them the
resources necessary to achieve success. I am confident they can
achieve.
We have no obligation to guarantee any American success. But we do
have an obligation to guarantee every American the opportunity to
achieve his or her potential. That is a responsibility that I think I
bear as a Member of this body. I am going to be hard pressed to vote
for a piece of legislation that demands success without giving these
kids the opportunity to prove what they are capable of.
The Senator from Minnesota has offered us an amendment which would
complete the circle by requiring the tests but providing the resources
that will allow us to judge fairly whether or not these children, their
parents, and their schools are meeting their obligations. I thank my
colleague for offering the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. WELLSTONE. I know other people desire to speak. I would like to
take 20 seconds to say to the Senator from Connecticut that, try as I
might, I cannot say it as well as he did. I thank him. We thank each
other all the time. But what he said was so powerful. Honest to God, it
was so powerful. I really do believe having national testing without
any guarantee of equal opportunity to pass the test, and the
opportunity to do well, is ethically unjust. What we are trying to say
with this amendment is let's give these children the opportunity to do
as well as they can. I thank him.
I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I yield to no one in this body in my
battle to seek full-funding for the title I program. I joined with the
Senator from Connecticut and the Senator from Maine on the amendment to
authorize full funding for title I. I have supported additional funding
in this bill, in terms of professional development, bilingual programs,
afterschool programs, school construction, and the other programs. We
are going to make every effort to ensure that reforms are accompanied
by resources.
But I have to really take issue with some of the points that have
been raised this afternoon, including the statements from my good
friend from Connecticut. We are already testing. Forty-six States
currently administer annual reading and math tests in two or more grade
levels.
Adequate yearly progress in current law, as well as in this
legislation, will be based upon the tests that were held last year.
That legislation is currently in place. It is happening in my State. I
will spend some time later in my conversation to go through the scores
of States that already test in grades 3-8. That is already taking
place.
No one argues with the point about ensuring that all students will be
prepared to take these tests. However, it is not quite that easy, even
with the full funding for title I. We are not providing full funding
for the Head Start Programs--only 40 percent. We are not providing full
funding for the Early Start Programs. All are enormously important for
our children to progress. But a number of States are doing a very good
job.
On the idea that we were going to effectively end any assistance to
those States after we accepted the amendments from the Senator from
Vermont in terms of effectively saying if we don't get the funding for
effective tests, that we are not going to be obligated to do it, we
have accepted the Wellstone amendment in terms of quality; we have
accepted the Wellstone amendment for increased funding; we are going to
make the battle in terms of funding for those programs.
But those tests which the States are using under this legislation are
happening today in 46 States. The question is, How are we going to have
those tests? What I think the Senators from Minnesota and Connecticut,
and I think on all sides of the aisle, want is not punishment for
students but instruments by which we can determine what children are
learning and what they are not learning: We want tests that will be
responsive to curriculum reform with well-trained teachers in those
classrooms. It is going to take some time. But we have recognized that
we are going to try to use quality tests in an effective way to enhance
children's learning.
I am not going to take a good deal of time, although I had the good
opportunity in Massachusetts last week to appear at a conference
sponsored by Mass Insight, and also to meet with Achieve--a nationally
known organization that has been working on accountability for several
years.
When I met with Achieve, they reported that 22 schools in
Massachusetts have made significant progress using tests and
demonstrating, with measurable results, how students have been making
progress. Those tests are being used well and effectively. No one
stands to defend poor quality tests that may, in fact, be detrimental
to children. But, the Senator from Minnesota's premise that if we do
not get to the full funding for the Title I program within 4 years,
that we cannot
[[Page S5938]]
provide for high-quality tests and good school reforms, is flawed.
Choosing not to commit to developing good instruments of educational
assessment and high standards that will drive curriculum reform,
teacher reform, educational reform, and accountability in those
communities, I think, just misses the point.
Our bill in the Senate requires States to develop assessments in
grades 3 through 8 in math and literacy, with the understanding that
those subjects are vital to the future educational success of children.
If students do not know how to read, they cannot learn. If they do not
know mathematics, they cannot continue their education, and they will
not be able to survive in the modern economy. So, we have made a
commitment in this bill to ensure that States develop and implement
tests in those subject areas.
But in the 1994 reauthorization of ESEA, we required States to
administer tests for school accountability at least three times: one in
grades 3-5, once in grades 6-9, and once in grades 10-12. Some States
have done a very good job of developing these assessments. Some have
not done so well. But this bill seeks to build upon the progress made
by those States who have developed high-quality assessments, and ensure
that the additional assessments developed by States are of the highest
quality.
I question the logic of discouraging high-quality assessment that
will provide data to help improve education, if in Congress may not be
able to secure 100 percent of the resources for reforms across the
board in Title I. I cannot understand this, as much as I fight for
increased funding for enhanced professional development, afterschool
programs, technology, literacy programs, and scores of other reforms
essential to improve student achievement.
There are not many Members of the Senate who like increased funding
as much as I do. However, we should not use tests as a scapegoat if we
are not able to achieve all that we advocate for. We should not take
out our frustrations that stem from insufficient funding for Title I,
on what have been recognized as effective instruments that measure
student achievement, and help teachers tailor instruction to meet the
needs of students. That should not be our goal.
I respect the opinion of my friend from Minnesota, and understand
that he does not regard assessments as having a critical role in school
reform. I know that he feels too many teachers teach to the test, and
that too many tests are used punitively, rather than constructively. I
believe that his concerns are at the heart of this amendment. However,
good tests can play an important role in school reform.
Earlier in our consideration of this bill I mentioned examples of
assessments working in tandem with efforts to reform schools, as has
occurred in my own State of Massachusetts, at the Jeremiah Burke High
School. The Burke school lost its accreditation 6 years ago because of
the low-level of education that was being offered at that school. This
year, the school has one of the lowest dropout rates in the city of
Boston. And every single student has been accepted to college. High
expectations, high standards, and the assessments needed to measure
progress.
At the Burke school, they use tests to identify student weaknesses,
and develop what is almost an individualized curriculum and academic
program for each student in need of extra help. This is not a school
that has great financial resources, but to the credit of the principal,
the Burke school was received with great excitement by parents and the
local community for the academic progress that has been made in the
school.
I am not prepared to accept an amendment that would propose to throw
away meaningful and important tools to gauge student achievement if
Congress cannot secure full-funding for all of the reforms included in
this bill. I do not think that is wise education policy. I think such
an amendment effectively undermines this legislation.
I take a backseat to no one in the fight to increase funding for
Title I and other programs. But no member in this body thinks we'll
meet the rate of increase for Title I called for in this amendment.
We should not discard the tools that can help promote school success.
I think that we should accept the basic assessment provisions in this
legislation, and take steps to monitor and watch State's progress
toward fulfilling the promise of those provisions. We are going to have
to ensure that States develop and implement effective, quality tests.
We have taken steps, with the Collins amendment, to review and
financially evaluate the costs associated with producing effective
tests. I can commit that as long as I am chairman of the Education
Committee, we will have vigorous, vigorous oversight on this particular
issue. We will take the steps that are necessary to alter and change
this situation if States do not have the resources to effectively
develop or use assessments.
But to eliminate provisions to provide for instruments that are being
used as tools for reform by teachers throughout the country would be
wrong. We should promote teachers' understanding of what children are
learning, and we should promote parents' understanding of what children
are learning. Denying parents the opportunity to understand how their
children's school is performing makes no sense.
At the appropriate time, I intend to vote no.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, first of all, let me be real clear. I
have said that in my own mind it is an interesting question as to
whether or not the Federal Government ought to be telling every school
district in every State to do this. I have never said I am opposed to
accountability. I was a college teacher for 20 years, and I do not tend
to give ground on this issue.
The reason I have had amendments to try to make this testing of high
quality is because, if this is going to be done, it has to be done the
right way. But there is more to this legislation.
My colleague from Massachusetts says we are already doing this with
title I. That is right. This legislation requires every school district
to test every child--not just title I children, every child, every
year.
I have heard Senator after Senator after Senator say we ought to,
along with the mandate of testing every child, have the opportunity for
every child to do well. That is all this amendment says.
I cannot believe what I have heard in this Chamber, which is that we
are not going to live up to what we said. Seventy-nine Senators voted
for the authorization. We were going to fully fund title I in 10 years.
It was going to be up to the level of $25 billion in 2005. Right now we
are only funding 30 percent of the children who are eligible. And now
my colleague comes to the floor and says that is all fiction, that it
is never going to happen.
If it is never going to happen, why, in God's name, do we want to
pretend it is going to happen? Whatever happened to the idea that every
child should have the same opportunity to succeed and do well?
I will say it one more time. I have heard a million people--I am the
one who first said it--say you cannot achieve the goal of leaving no
child behind on a tin-cup budget. You cannot pretend to have education
reform on a tin-cup budget. I have heard Senator after Senator after
Senator say we are going to do both accountability and resources. All
this amendment says is, not that States and school districts cannot
test--they can; not that they don't want to go ahead with testing--they
can. What we are saying is, if we do not live up to our commitment to
provide the money for more help for kids for reading, more
prekindergarten education, more afterschool education, then the State
can say they do not want to do the testing.
We ought to live up to our end of the bargain. I cannot believe we
are acting as if the test brings about better teachers; that testing
leads to smaller class sizes; that testing means kids come to
kindergarten ready to learn; that testing means children get the help
they need. None of that is happening the way it should. And title I is
part of our commitment.
Can't we at least live up to our words? That is all this amendment
says. I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Carper). Is the Senator from Minnesota
[[Page S5939]]
yielding time to the Senator from Rhode Island?
Mr. WELLSTONE. How much time do we have?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Thirty-five and one-half minutes.
Mr. WELLSTONE. I am pleased to yield 10 minutes to my colleague from
Rhode Island. I also say, in 30 seconds right now, for month after
month after month, I have been hearing how we are going to get a
commitment from the administration of resources. We have no commitment
of any resources in this bill when it comes to title I. I am trying to
make sure we live up to our promises.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise as a cosponsor of the Wellstone
amendment and a strong supporter of the amendment. I believe what
Senator Wellstone is doing is calling our collective bluff. We talk
about high standards, high accountability for every school in America.
We talk about not leaving any child behind. We talk about authorizing
significant amounts of money for title I. In fact, we have all come
together, 79 of us, to vote for a substantial increase in title I
spending--authorization, not appropriation, under the leadership of
Senator Dodd and Senator Collins.
What he is saying is, if we are all in favor, if we have all voted
for it, let's make sure we do it. Let's make sure we do it in
conjunction with the testing, not after the fact, not testing first,
money later. Let's do it together.
That is very wise public policy. It reflects what we have all been
talking about for weeks and weeks now. I have heard in the course of
the debate analogies to other realms of endeavor, talking about the
efficacy, the importance of testing. We know testing is important.
There is no one in the Senate who does not recognize that if you test
students to see if they are making progress, you have to evaluate the
test scores of schools to see if they are adequate. No one is arguing
with that logic.
Let's look at, for example, a medical situation. If you showed up in
one hospital, you would get the same test as another hospital across
town. But in one hospital, you are discovered to have a serious heart
problem. They don't have a lot of money, so they give you some chewing
gum. The other hospital across town has lots of money, so they give you
beta blockers and all sorts of exercise counseling,
nutrition, everything under the sun. You are besieged by counselors and
therapists, people organizing your life so that you can deal
effectively with this discovery. It is the same test, however, with
much different results. Senator Wellstone is arguing, we will have
those tests, but we want the same results.
Frankly, it is about money. It is about resources. The difference, as
he pointed out so well, between the performance of students on tests is
inextricably, invariably linked to the income levels of those students
and, as a result, the income levels of those schools. We all know the
basic source of funding for public education in the United States is
the property tax. Inner cities with declining property values put less
into their programs than affluent suburbs. The reality is, if we really
want the system to work, if we want the tests to work, to do more than
just identifying failure, if we want to guarantee success, we have to
put these resources in. That is the heart of the amendment.
I have also heard--and we hear this every time we engage in a debate
on education--we are doing so much worse compared to other countries,
particularly European countries. We very well may be. The answer,
however, might not be testing. The answer might be having a
comprehensive health care system for every child. It might be to have a
program of daycare for every child, a very elaborate parental leave
program for every family. Maybe if we did those things, our test scores
would look very good relative to France or Germany or Great Britain or
other countries. So be very careful and wary of these comparisons
internationally.
We know that we can improve the quality of our education if we have
accountability, and that requires some testing. But we also should know
and recognize, as Senator Wellstone does, that accountability in
testing without real resources won't make the difference we want to
achieve. That is not unique to Senator Wellstone.
A recent Aspen Institute report noted:
In the effort to raise the achievement of all American
students, an extremely serious barrier is the huge
disparities in resources for education across districts and
states. It is not unusual for per student expenditures to be
three times greater in affluent districts than in poorer
districts of the same state.
That accounts for many of the reasons why some students succeed and
others fail. The real test, in fact the essence of democracy in
America, is not what we say but where we send our children to school.
Many parents recognize that when they purchase homes in areas that have
good public schools versus those areas that are not funded as robustly.
Now, in addition, the Center for Education Policy concludes, in a
recent report, that policymakers ``should be wary of proposals that
embrace the rhetoric of closing the gap but do not help build the
capacity to accomplish that goal.''
Testing is just one aspect of that capacity building. We have to have
good professional development, good parental involvement, and resources
so that the school building itself is a place that children will want
to go to and not try to shun and leave as quickly as they can.
The Wellstone amendment is very straightforward. It simply states
that the new tests authorized under title I need not be implemented
unless title I appropriations have reached $24.72 billion by 2005. That
was the amount authorized by the Dodd-Collins amendment for the year
the tests are scheduled to go into effect, also 2005.
This amendment has widespread support: The American Association of
School Administrators, the Council of Great City Schools, the Hispanic
Education Coalition, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education
Fund, the NAACP, the National Association of Black School Educators,
the National Council of La Raza, the National Education Association,
the National PTA, and the National School Boards Association--all of
these groups representing those individuals closest to the issue of
education. The school boards, the PTAs, they recognize the logic and
the wisdom of the Wellstone amendment.
I hope we can recognize that logic, that we can support this
amendment. And, frankly, if our intentions are good, and I believe they
are, this amendment will be merely hortatory. If our intentions are
good, we will appropriate the money. We will reach those targets.
Testing will go into effect. But if it is the intention or the mishap
that we vote for testing but we don't vote for resources to title I,
then rather than ruing that day, we should vote for this amendment and
provide a real check.
I urge all of my colleagues to support the amendment. I yield back my
time to Senator Wellstone.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. GREGG. I yield such time as he may consume to the Senator from
Arkansas.
Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, let me say a few words about this
amendment. Then I will speak on the bill in general.
Just reading the Wellstone amendment helps to clarify the argument
and the signal this amendment sends. It says:
No State shall be required to conduct any assessments under
this subparagraph in any school year if, by July 1, 2005, the
amount appropriated to carry out this part for fiscal year
2005 does not equal or exceed $24,720,000,000.
That is, let's fully fund--however we define ``fully fund''--title I
before we require this accountability and these assessments. The signal
of this amendment, the not-too-subtle message is that the problem in
our educational system in this country is there is not enough money.
That is the less-than-subtle message the Senator from Minnesota would
send out to school districts across this Nation: We are not going to
have accountability; we are not going to require testing; we are not
going to have assessments under this title until we triple the funding.
If money were the issue, if simply spending more money would solve
our education problems in this country, we would have no education bill
before us.
[[Page S5940]]
If one looks at the last decade, particularly in terms of the Federal
Government's involvement, it has been about a 180-percent increase over
the previous decade. Nationally, we have increased spending on
education by about 30 percent, if one looks at every source of spending
on education.
There have been dramatic increases in education spending, but there
has been no--I repeat--there has been no correlation to increased test
scores and increased student achievement.
While I do not doubt the sincerity of the Senator from Minnesota, I
question the logic and the message this amendment sends forth.
In the 1994 ESEA reauthorization, Congress required assessments in
three grades. Those provisions were in effect no matter how much or how
little Federal funding was provided. The fact is, we did not pay for
the testing that we at that time required. In the bill before us, I
believe we are more than increasing spending sufficient to meet the new
mandates that are being placed upon the States.
The Senator from Minnesota says we are setting schools up for
failure. I suggest that what we are really doing is freeing schools and
freeing States to make the kind of reforms to focus resources where
real academic achievement can be realized.
I have talked to education officials in the State of Arkansas. I have
talked to education officials in our State department, and they support
the President's education initiative. They support the provisions
regarding testing. It does not scare them. They realize this is the way
we measure; this is the way we assess; this is the best means we have
to really demonstrate that education is working, that children are
learning, and that the investments being made in Federal, State, and
local resources are good investments.
This amendment strikes at the very heart of the President's plan. We
currently provide almost $9 billion for title I, and since title I has
been around, we have seen no correlating rise in test scores among
students being served. Why then would it be suggested we should require
that we eliminate the most important accountability provisions of the
bill and not put those accountability provisions in effect until we
triple title I funding?
Total national spending on elementary and secondary education has
increased 129 percent over the last decade, but Federal spending has
increased by over 180 percent over the last decade. Since Republicans
gained control of the House and Senate in 1995, Federal spending on
elementary and secondary education has increased from $14.7 billion in
1996 to $27.8 billion in 2002. That is an almost doubling of the
Federal funds for elementary and secondary education.
I suggest we should not try to portray one party or another party as
being committed to education but look at the facts, look at the
commitment that has been demonstrated in resources. But increasing
funding is simply not the answer in and of itself. There are a lot of
statistics that can demonstrate that. Let me share a few of them.
These statistics came from the most recent 1998 National Assessment
of Educational Progress, the NAEP test, demonstrating that with the
$120 billion that has been invested, poor kids still lag behind those
of more affluent backgrounds in reading. In 4th grade, 8th grade, 12th
grade, the areas in which we require testing, we can see that gap is as
real and as evident as it ever was.
The whole reason the Federal Government involved itself in local
education was justified by our commitment to narrowing the gap between
affluent homes, advantaged children, and those from less affluent homes
and disadvantaged backgrounds. The experiment has been a monumental
failure. We have invested billions of dollars, and yet we have not
narrowed that gap. It is not time to reduce the resources but to ensure
with those resources there are genuine and real reforms that accompany
the resources.
This is a graph demonstrating ESEA funding versus the NAEP reading
scores. A chart such as this clearly demonstrates there is a lack of
correlation between increased spending and automatic improvement in
reading scores or academic achievement. The appropriation for ESEA
programs is in the billions of dollars. The red line demonstrates how
dramatically those increases have occurred. The green line demonstrates
the national fourth grade reading scores, which have effectively, since
1991, been level. There has been increased spending without a
comparable increase--in fact, any demonstrable increase--in reading
scores nationally.
If we look at math, we find exactly the same story. These are ESEA
funding versus NAEP math scores. There is a flat line on math
achievement and a dramatic increase in appropriations for ESEA. We
simply cannot find the evidence which shows that with increased
spending, given the resources, the results are going to be there.
This bill dramatically increases spending, but to its credit and to
the President's credit for taking the lead on this issue, it says
increased resources must be accompanied by real reforms, real
assessments, real accountability. That is what this legislation does.
The United States spends more per student than most other advanced
nations in the world. This chart clearly demonstrates, even if we look
at advanced nations in Europe--Denmark, Switzerland, France--and
Australia, we are expending more money, sometimes dramatically more
money, than other developed nations.
If spending were the answer, if the more we spent per student the
better the test scores were going to be, the greater the academic
achievement, hence, the greater opportunity those children would have
in the future, then we should be leading the world in academic
achievement. After all, we are spending more per student than any other
advanced nation in the world.
What are the academic results internationally? A 1999 chemistry
knowledge achievement on the TIMSS eighth grade test shows we are
lagging way behind Hungary, Finland, Japan, Bulgaria, Slovak Republic,
South Korea, Russian Federation, Australia--we are way down in our
achievement in the area of chemistry. We are spending more, but we are
not producing more.
This chart shows the 1999 algebra knowledge achievement test in the
area of math in the eighth grade. Once again, we are near the bottom of
the industrialized nations of the world. South Korea cannot compare
with how much we are spending per student in this country, and yet they
dramatically outperform American students. There simply is not the
correlation between spending and academic achievement that many would
like to draw.
This next chart is 1999 geometry knowledge achievement in the eighth
grade. Once again, looking at the industrialized nations around the
world from Japan to Australia, they far outperform American eighth
grade students in math and in science.
Does it mean we should spend less? No. It means we should spend more
wisely. It means we must accompany increased spending with real reform,
with accountability, with assessment, with local control and
flexibility. Truly one size does not fit all.
There is one message the Arkansas Department of Education sent to my
office: Do not handcuff us; do not continue down the road of
prescriptive national formulas on what we must do. Give us the
flexibility to make local reforms and, hence, improve student
achievement.
The evidence is clear that this amendment, well intended as it may
be, is greatly misguided. We have a bill before us that, if we were to
enact it without undermining its very underpinnings and pulling its
very heart out, could move us in a dramatically new and better
direction on education.
It provides important provisions on greater parental choice, not as
much as many would like but greater parental choice. The charter States
and the straight A provisions, although much watered down, still
provide a new and bold opportunity for a few States to experiment with
real reform, unhindered by Federal prescriptive programs.
New standards; the requirement of testing grades 3-8; participation
in the NAEP; testing 4 and 8; ensuring that not only are the States
testing but the tests they are utilizing are meaningful and are giving
an accurate depiction of what schools are succeeding and what schools
are failing; what States have reforms that are working and what States
are not doing the job.
[[Page S5941]]
On improvement in teacher quality, I applaud and commend the
distinguished Senator from New Hampshire for his lead on improving
teacher quality and ensuring that money is wisely invested in
professional development, not giving a one-size-fits-all but providing
a flexible funding stream to meet the particular teacher quality needs
that school districts have across this country.
Finally, with those reforms, with increased parental flexibility,
local school flexibility, with attention on individual children, with
the requirements on testing, with the consolidation of the plethora of
Federal programs, with all of those reforms, there is the increase in
spending. That should be the proper Federal role.
We have a great opportunity before the Senate. We have been on the
bill for weeks and weeks. We have debated scores of amendments. The
genuine and real thrust of the President's education program has thus
far been kept intact. The challenge before the Senate this week and
next will be to beat back those amendments that turn back to the failed
practices of the past, turn back to the misguided notion that more
money means better education. That is our challenge, to keep that part
of this bill alive, to honor the pledge the President of the United
States made to the American people to take us in a new and dramatically
better direction on education. I am still hopeful and optimistic, but
amendments such as this threaten a return to the failed status quo.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield myself 5 minutes from the
opposition.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. WELLSTONE. I also ask unanimous consent the Senator from Michigan
be allowed to speak for 5 minutes, followed by the Senator from
Washington.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. KENNEDY. I indicated my opposition to the Wellstone amendment,
but I take a moment to correct the record of my good friend from
Arkansas.
We spend $400 billion a year in K-12; and $8 billion on title I. The
fact that some students have not made progress is not the fault of the
Title I program. Instead, it is a reflection of the fact that States
have not provided the leadership in terms of assistance and resources.
That is where accountability comes in.
No one is saying money is the answer to everything, but it is a clear
indication of a nation's priorities. Although we have a difference in
terms of this particular legislation, I stand shoulder to shoulder with
the Senator from Minnesota and others who say we ought to work for the
full funding because we are only reaching a third of the students.
I remind my friend from Arkansas what happened in Texas. Look what
has happened in school funding from 1994 to 2001. Texas has increased
their funding for education statewide by 57 percent. Look at the
student achievement. Student achievement has increased by 27 percent.
Resources have been expended in developing standards and assessments,
academies that assist low-achieving students, professional development,
and smaller class sizes. That is how the resources have been spent.
They have been getting results.
I agree what we want to do is, with scarce resources, give the tried
and true policies which have demonstrated effectiveness in the past and
make them available to local communities so they make decisions and
hold them accountable within that community. That is what this
legislation will do.
The testing is also a part of this process. I agree it should be. I
am not prepared to put it at risk because we don't reach the actual
dollar figure included in the Senator's amendment.
I reserve the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under a unanimous consent, the Senator from
Michigan is recognized.
Ms. STABENOW. Briefly, Mr. President, I will respond to my friend
from Arkansas and his charts, comparing our country to other countries.
One of my concerns in comparing countries is that we in the United
States do not stress that we have very different values regarding
universal free education for all children, kindergarten through the
12th grade. We take all. Whatever child walks in the door, whether that
child has had breakfast, whether they have had a good night's sleep,
whether they even had a bed or home in which to sleep the night before.
We take all children. I believe that is a strength of the United States
of America.
I have had the opportunity to travel around the world and speak with
those involved in education in other systems and know if we were to
make certain adjustments and only let children over the eighth grade
who have met a certain level proceed, or do as done in other countries,
that would have a different effect from what we do in the United
States.
Mr. HUTCHINSON. Will the Senator yield?
Ms. STABENOW. Certainly. I ask it come from the opposition time.
Mr. HUTCHINSON. Would the Senator from Michigan concede that although
there are differences between European nations and the students they
educate in the upper grades, the statistics I showed giving
international comparisons in the eighth grade in both Europe and the
United States, all students are being educated, that it demonstrates we
are achieving less on those international test scores than comparable
student bodies in European nations?
Ms. STABENOW. If I may reclaim my time, I concur, from watching the
study and what has been done, that we, while doing well at the fourth
grade level in the TIMSS international studies, by the eighth grade we
are losing children. We need to be toughening curriculum and we need to
focus on accountability. Many times comparisons that are done are not
fair and accurate given the value we have on public education.
Two further comments. First, saying resources should not be coupled
with accountability and don't make a difference is to ignore what has
happened today for our children in schools. It is not about the
dollars. It is about lowering the class size. I have a friend in Grand
Rapids, MI, who teaches high-risk students and last year had over 30
students; this year, 15. Surprise, the children went from F's and D's
to A's and B's. That is because there was more time for the teacher to
teach and the children to learn. It is not about money; it is about
children learning and teachers being able to teach smaller classes.
As an example, that same school has books that have situations that
don't exist anymore, countries that don't exist anymore, discussions
about NASA from years ago. They need to be updated.
I have one final point in support of the amendment of my colleague. I
was not here 25 years ago when IDEA passed, when special education was
brought forward. However, I do know as someone who has been in a State
legislature and has been an active parent with my two children growing
up, special education, while setting very important requirements, had,
also, the promise that the Federal Government would pay 40 percent of
the costs to help the schools so they would not have to take dollars
away from other programs, other children, in order to provide these
important special education services.
What happened? The Federal Government has never hit 15 percent--never
hit 15 percent--even though the promise was 40 percent. The reason I
believe this amendment is important is we cannot do this again to the
schools. The fact we are not keeping our promise on special education
costs my Michigan schools $420 million this year--$420 million that is
taken from the ability to lower class size, the ability to upgrade our
technology and focus on math and science in our schools, to fund
critically important special education programs.
We should not do this again. This amendment will guarantee that, in
fact, we will not just talk about requirements; we will make sure the
resources are there so our children can truly succeed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous unanimous consent
agreement, the Senator from Washington is to be recognized.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask how much time we have?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The proponents of the amendment have almost
[[Page S5942]]
23 minutes, the opponents of the amendment have just over 60 minutes.
Mr. GREGG. Will the Senator from Minnesota allow us, Mr. President,
after the Senator from Washington speaks, to set aside his amendment so
the Senator from Texas could offer her amendment? And then after
offering her amendment we could go back to the Wellstone amendment?
Mr. WELLSTONE. Could I ask how much time the Senator from Texas
requires?
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I would like to take about 7 minutes,
and the Senator from New York would be speaking on the amendment as
well for about 5 minutes. Could we have, perhaps, 15 minutes? Because
Senator Collins from Maine is going to try to come down. After 15
minutes, then we would go back to the Wellstone amendment, close that,
and our amendment would be voted on afterwards.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, my understanding is this would be after
the Senator from Washington speaks? That will be fine.
Mr. GREGG. I ask unanimous consent that after the Senator from
Washington speaks, the Senator from Texas be recognized to offer her
amendment, that we set aside Senator Wellstone's amendment, that she
offer her amendment and be on her amendment for up to 15 minutes. Then
we will return to Senator Wellstone's amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
The Senator from Washington is recognized.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, Senator Wellstone brings us an amendment
today that really gets to the very heart of this bill, helping our
schools ensure that no child is left behind. Some seem to think the
heart of this bill is testing, but I have to say as a parent and former
educator I know testing alone will not ensure that one additional child
learns to read. Testing alone will not help our Nation's students learn
to add and subtract. The heart of this bill must be a true effort by
the Federal Government to serve as a partner to our States and to our
local communities, offering every child a high-quality education and
true chance to succeed.
In 1965, when the Federal Government first recognized its special
responsibility to provide additional resources to help the most
disadvantaged students, we determined a level of support that was
necessary to ensure that every child would succeed. Since that time, we
have failed over and over again to really give them that support. That
is what this Wellstone amendment is about: ensuring we finally meet our
commitment to those children.
Over the course of this debate, many of my colleagues have said that
title I has failed to help our children over the past 35 years. They
cite stagnant test scores as proof that additional investments in title
I are a waste. Frankly, that is ridiculous. The reality is, after
adjusting for inflation, title I spending has been almost flat.
Meanwhile, the job of our public schools has gotten much more
demanding, serving not only more students overall, but more students
with challenges in limited English proficiency and disabilities.
But these glib statements about title I having failed our
disadvantaged students are perhaps most disingenuous and frustrating
when one considers the chronic underfunding of title I. Let me talk
about that for a moment and illustrate the absurdity of this argument
that title I has failed.
Let's assume that Congress decides we must build a bridge from the
House to the Senate side of the Capitol; after building a third of that
bridge, we begin sending people over that bridge. Not surprisingly, no
one makes it to the other side. Some Senators come to the floor and
express shock and dismay that no one has crossed the incomplete bridge.
After years of this kind of folly, we finally declare on the floor of
the Senate that the bridge is clearly a failure and it has to be torn
down.
That is what we have done with title I. We have determined that a
need exists. We have developed a solution. We have failed to implement
that solution. And then we have declared that the solution is not a
good one.
The promise of title I has never truly been fulfilled, and because of
that, the promise for millions of children has also not been fulfilled.
But this is not a matter of getting people across the Capitol. This is
about our children's lives. This is about giving them a true chance to
succeed. Title I has not failed our most disadvantaged children; we
have failed them by not fully funding title I. Title I provides some of
the most targeted and flexible funding. This is the kind of funding we
need to offer if children are going to have any chance of passing these
tests.
Last week, when I was home in my home State of Washington, I met with
31 superintendents in one meeting, and then I talked with countless
other parents who stopped me in the grocery store or on the street or
anywhere else they found me to express their enormous concern about
this bill. They know we are sending them a huge unfunded testing
mandate, but they are not sure whether we are sending them much else.
Frankly, neither am I.
I know this bill does not provide smaller classes. It doesn't provide
support for school renovation or even all the money they will need to
develop and implement the tests we are requiring. I also know this bill
imposes serious consequences based on the results of these new tests,
but this bill does not give our children or our teachers or our schools
the tools they need to help the kids pass these tests.
What is our goal in this bill? Is it to impose an enormous unfunded
testing mandate on our schools? Is it to declare our schools are in
need of improvement or to shut them down? Is it to set our children and
their teachers up for failure or is it to ensure that no child is left
behind by, yes, measuring their progress but also providing the
resources that will help them make that progress?
I have heard my colleagues claim over and over again that the testing
in this bill is simply a measure and it will help us identify the
needs. Will anyone really be surprised if these new tests show that
many children in our most poor schools are not succeeding? When will
they have sufficient evidence that the problem exists and be willing to
then take the steps necessary to solve it? We keep hearing people say
this bill is about accountability. I have news for them. Most of our
Nation's teachers, principals, and educators have always felt
accountable to the people they serve in their own communities.
What about our accountability? When will we be held accountable for
following through on our commitments? We have gotten away with not
following through on this one for 35 years. Isn't it time we held
ourselves accountable and stopped picking on the teachers and the
parents and the students who are struggling every day with insufficient
resources?
About a month ago, 78 of our colleagues came down to this floor and
voted to invest this amount of funds in our most disadvantaged
children. Was our goal that day just another empty promise? I expect at
least some of those same 79 votes will be registered in favor of
Senator Wellstone's amendment since it simply affirms the commitment we
have made to these children.
This vote is a test. Are we willing to put our money where our mouths
are? Any Senator who voted for the Dodd amendment but votes against
this amendment will have some explaining to do--not to me, by the way,
but to the children they are deceiving with false promises of help
backed up with only another test, not a smaller class, a well-prepared
teacher, or an afterschool program.
I urge my colleagues to support the Wellstone amendment and show the
Nation's most disadvantaged students that we are committed to offering
more than just words of encouragement. We are committed to offering
them the support they need to succeed.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, if I could take a moment, I thank the
Senator from Washington. Her work as a State legislator, as a school
board member and teacher, her familiarity with children and what is
happening in schools, with kids, with teachers, and for the amendment,
comes through all the time.
I thank her.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the unanimous consent agreement, the
Senator from Texas is recognized for 15 minutes on her amendment.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside
[[Page S5943]]
any pending amendment and to call up amendment No. 540.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 540 to Amendment No. 358
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Texas [Mrs. Hutchison] proposes an
amendment numbered 540.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To provide for education reform programs that provide same
gender schools and classrooms, if comparable educational opportunities
are offered for students of both sexes)
On page 684, strike liens 1 through 5, and insert the
following:
``(L) education reform programs that provide same gender
schools and classrooms, if comparable educational
opportunities are offered for students of both sexes;''.
Amendment No. 540, as modified
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I send to the desk an amendment to
amendment No. 540, a modification to be substituted for the text of the
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the modification?
The amendment is so modified.
The amendment (No. 540), as modified, is as follows:
(Purpose: To amend the provisions relating to same gender schools and
classrooms)
On page 684, strike lines 1 through 5, and insert the
following:
``(L) programs to provide same gender schools and
classrooms, consistent with applicable law;
On page 684, between lines 16 and 17, insert the following:
``(c) Award Criteria and Other Guidelines.--Not later than
120 days after the date of enactment of the Better Education
for Students and Teachers Act, the Secretary shall issue
specific award criteria and other guidelines for local
educational agencies seeking funding for activities under
subsection (b)(1)(L).
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, this is an amendment that several of
us have worked on for quite a while trying to come up with the right
formula.
I thank Senator Kennedy, and I especially thank the cosponsors of my
amendment, Senator Collins, Senator Mikulski, and Senator Clinton, for
trying to come up with a solution to a problem that we have seen over
many years; that is, obstacles put in place against public schools
being able to offer single-sex classrooms and single-sex schools.
We are trying to open more options to public school than are
available in private school because we want public schools to be able
to tailor their programs to what best fits the needs of students in
that particular area.
Most of the time coeducational classes in schools are going to be the
answer. But sometimes in some circumstances we find that girls do
better in a single-sex atmosphere and boys do better in a single-sex
atmosphere. We want parents who might not be able to afford private
school or might not have the option of parochial school to be able to
go to their school board and say: We would like to offer a single-sex
eighth grade math class for girls or we would like to offer a single-
sex chemistry lab for boys or we might want a whole single-sex school,
such as some that have had wonderful results.
I imagine my colleague, the Senator from New York, will mention this
because one of the great success stories in single-sex public schools
is the Young Women's Leadership Academy in East Harlem, NY, which just
saw its first high school graduation and schools such as Western High
School in Baltimore that has been in place since the 1800s.
These are the kinds of schools that have weathered all the storms,
faced the lawsuits, and have gotten over it. We don't want those kinds
of barriers.
If people want that kind of option, and parents come to the school
boards wanting that option, that is easily obtain. Our amendment simply
says, under applicable law, schools can offer, under title VI, which is
the creativity title--the title that we hope will open more options for
public schools, single-sex schools and classrooms--we want to
particularly have the Department of Education, which is provided in
this amendment, to have 120 days to issue guidelines so the public
schools that are interested in offering this kind of option will have
clear guidelines on how they must structure the program to meet
applicable law. That is simply what the amendment does. It has been
agreed to by all of the entities that have been working on this issue.
I think this is very exciting. It is something I have worked on since
Senator Danforth of Missouri left the Senate; he tried to get an
amendment passed when he was here that would have allowed single-sex
schools and classrooms and made it easier to do that. But the
Department of Education, frankly, has been the barrier. They have put
the roadblocks in front of the people who want to try to do this around
the country. Most people have been persuaded. Ones such as the East
Harlem Young Women's Leadership Academy have prevailed, and they have
done very well.
However, we shouldn't have to overcome hurdles. We want public
schools to meet all of the tests and all of the individual needs of
students without having to go through a lot of redtape, a lot of
bureaucracy, and many barriers. That is what this amendment will do.
I call on my colleague from New York, who has worked with me on this
amendment. I talked to her about my observations of the leadership
school in Harlem when we first put this amendment forward. She has been
a real leader in helping me work through the amendment and getting
everyone to agree on what we could do to go forward. I appreciate that
help. I yield to my colleague, the Senator from New York.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York is recognized.
Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I thank my good friend and colleague
from Texas for her leadership on this and so many other issues. The
remarks she made very well describe why I stand in support of this
amendment.
I believe public school choice should be expanded and as broadly as
possible. Certainly, there should not be any obstacle to providing
single-sex choice within the public school system. I thank the Senator
from Texas for being a leader in promoting quality single-sex education
and for working with me, as well as our colleagues from Maryland and
Maine, and with the chairman of the Education Committee, to find a
compromise that would further the ability of our school districts
around the country to develop and implement quality single-sex
educational opportunities as a part of providing a diversity of public
school choices to students and parents but in doing it in a way that in
no way undermines title IX or the equal protection clause of the
Constitution.
We know, as the Senator from Texas has said, that single-sex schools
and classes can help young people, boys and girls, improve their
achievement.
In New York City, we have one of the premier public schools for girls
in our Nation. In fact, yesterday the New York Times reported that the
first class of girls graduating from the Young Women's Leadership
Academy in East Harlem in New York City--all 32 of the seniors--have
been accepted by 4-year colleges, and all but one are going to attend
while the other young woman has decided to pursue a career in the Air
Force, which we know is also an opportunity for young women.
We have to look at the achievements of a school such as the one in
New York City that I mentioned, the Young Women's Leadership Academy,
or other schools that are springing up around the country. We know this
has energized students and parents. We could use more schools such as
this.
With the negotiations we have engaged in over this amendment, there
was some disagreement that we had to work out about how to comply with
title IX and with the Constitution because there has been confusion
around our country in school districts about how they can develop
single-sex educational opportunities without running afoul of the law
or a constitutional prohibition.
This amendment clearly states that school districts should have the
opportunity to spend Federal educational funds on promoting single-sex
opportunities so long as they are consistent with applicable law. It
also makes
[[Page S5944]]
clear that the U.S. Department of Education should clarify to our
school districts what they can and cannot do. Their guidance should be
developed as soon as possible. The Senator from Texas and I will watch
closely to make sure this guidance is available to school districts.
Both title IX and the equal protection clause provide strong
protections so schools cannot fall back on harmful stereotypes. For
example, we have done away with the prohibition that used to keep girls
out of shop classes. I can remember that--even out of prestigious
academic high schools because they were boys only. We have broken down
those barriers. We don't in any way want this amendment to start
building them up. We are trying to be very clear that we uphold title
IX and the Constitution while we create more young women's leadership
academies that will make a real difference in the lives of young women
and young men.
For example, we do not need another situation as we had with VMI,
where young women were first prohibited from attending the school and
then were provided with an alternative that was not in any way the same
as what was available to the boys.
The language offered here strikes the important balance between
providing flexibility to offer single-sex educational opportunities and
providing the legal safeguards pursuant to the VMI decision, and key
title IX protections, to ensure that we do not turn back the clock.
What the Senator from Texas and I want to do is to provide more and
more opportunities for our young people to chart their own courses, to
make it clear that they are able to have their own futures in their
hands by getting the best possible public school education.
So I am very grateful that we have come together today on behalf of
this important amendment which will send a clear signal that we want
public schools to provide choices. We want to eliminate sex-based
stereotyping. We want to make it clear that every young girl can reach
her fullest potential and should be able to choose from among options
that will make that possible; and the same for our young boys as well.
So I thank the Senator from Texas for not only putting forth this
amendment but for working so hard on making it really do what we intend
it to do, so there will be the kind of opportunities for our children
that we in this Chamber favor and that we hope this bill will bring
about.
Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator yields back the time.
There are approximately 5 minutes remaining.
The Senator from Texas.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I yield up to 4 minutes to my
colleague and cosponsor of the amendment, Senator Collins.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, first, I commend the Senator from Texas
for her superior work on this issue. She and I have been working on it
for a very long time. I am delighted to see the bipartisan compromise
amendment reached today.
This action is long overdue and would correct a misinterpretation of
title IX of the education amendments of 1972 that clearly was never
intended.
Our amendment would ensure that local school districts can establish
single-sex classrooms. I would like to share with my colleagues a
wonderful example from Presque Isle High School in northern Maine of
what can be accomplished with a single-sex classroom.
A gifted math teacher in Presque Isle by the name of Donna Lisnik
believed that an all-girls advanced mathematics class would result in
higher levels of achievement by women. She was absolutely right. Donna
established an all-girls math class, and the results were absolutely
outstanding. Both the achievement of the girls, whether measured on SAT
scores or by other tests, and the results, the number of girls
participating in the class, soared. Everything was a plus.
I had the privilege of visiting Mrs. Lisnik's class. I saw firsthand
the enthusiasm the girls had for mathematics, how comfortable they
felt, and how they were accelerating.
However, unfortunately, in the previous administration, the
Department of Education concluded that this very worthwhile and
effective course did not correct historical inequities and, thus,
deemed it to be a violation of title IX requirements. As a result,
Presque Isle had to open the course to both boys and girls. It was
unfortunate that the school was prevented from pursuing a strategy that
was resulting in very high achievement levels for the girls attending
those classes.
Senator Hutchison's bipartisan compromise amendment will ensure that
schools with innovative education programs, designed to meet gender-
specific needs, will not face needless obstacles.
This amendment is a great example of our working across party lines
to do what is best for our children and for educational reform. It will
give schools the flexibility to design and the ability to offer single-
gender classes when the school determines that these classrooms will
provide students with a better opportunity to achieve higher standards.
That is a goal we all share.
I see the Senator from Delaware is also seeking to speak on this
issue, so I yield back to the Senator from Texas the remainder of my
time. Again, I commend her for her hard work on this issue. It has been
a pleasure to be her partner in this regard.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I do want to say we would not have
gotten to this point without Senator Collins' leadership and help. We
adopted this amendment before. We are now back adopting it again
because the bill that we passed before did not end up with a
Presidential signature. So I thank her for being with us because of her
experiences in Maine and appreciate her support very much.
Mr. President, how much time remains?
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Wellstone). The Senator has half a minute.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. I ask unanimous consent the Senator from Delaware be
yielded 1 minute, and then that I be recognized for 30 seconds to
close.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Delaware.
Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Texas very much
for providing me the 1 minute. And I thank the Presiding Officer for
sitting in for me so I might speak.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be added as a cosponsor to
the amendment that is being offered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CARPER. We in the Senate should be concerned foremost with what
is going to work to raise student achievement. We want to provide the
resources that will enable and foster and nurture that achievement. We
also want to make sure we take away barriers to that student
achievement.
When I was sitting as the Presiding Officer during the debate, I
realized the nature of the amendment being offered, and I felt
compelled to applaud what we are endeavoring to do.
It reminds me that 10 years ago we faced a roadblock in my own State
of Delaware because we were unable to do, on a small scale, what we
seek to do with this amendment. I know it is not just our State but in
the 49 other States young men and young women will benefit if we are
able to include this in the legislation that goes to the President, and
then if we follow up in the 50 States of America.
I applaud each of you for offering the amendment and thank you for
the opportunity to speak on its behalf.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. I thank the distinguished Senator from Delaware, the
distinguished former Governor, who obviously has another example of how
these big barriers have hurt our ability to allow students to get the
best education for their particular needs.
So I just close by saying, now it is up to the Department of
Education. What we are saying in this Chamber today is: Drop the
barriers. Open the options for public schools. Give parents a chance to
have their child in public school have all the options that would fit
the needs of that particular child.
I again thank Senator Mikulski and Senator Collins who have been with
[[Page S5945]]
me on this amendment from the very beginning, and I thank our new
cosponsors, Senator Clinton, Senator Carper, and Senator Kennedy, for
working with me to form this compromise.
The bottom line is that the Department of Education must step up to
the plate. I have discussed this with Secretary Rod Paige. He agrees.
He has committed to me that he will open the spigot, open the
floodgates, to allow this to be one of the options that will be
available to the parents of public schoolchildren in this country.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Carper). The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. KENNEDY. If it is agreeable to the Senator from Minnesota, we
could dispose of the amendment on a voice vote now. Would that be
agreeable to the Senator?
Mr. WELLSTONE. That would be fine.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No.
540, as modified.
The amendment (No. 540), as modified, was agreed to.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Thank you, Mr. President.
Mr. KENNEDY. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield myself just 3 minutes on the
amendment of the Senator from Texas.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I want to join in thanking the Senator
from Texas. This issue is one of enormous importance. We have heard
very eloquent comments and statements about the opportunities that this
type of amendment can provide for young Americans.
We want to take advantage of those opportunities. As one who has been
here for some time, I have often seen where there appear to be
opportunities, and where there has also been discrimination against
individuals. That has been true in a variety of different
circumstances. None of us wants to see this. We know that that is not
the intention of any of us who is supporting this particular program.
The Senator was enormously helpful and positive and constructive, as
was the Senator from New York, Mrs. Clinton, Senator Collins, Senator
Mikulski, and others, in making sure that we were, to the extent
possible, not going to see a reenforcement or a return to old
stereotyping which has taken place at an unfortunate period in terms of
American education. They have done that, the Senator has done that with
the amendment. That has been enormously important.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Dayton). The Senator from New York.
Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
amendment under consideration be set aside.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I did not realize that the Senator from
Minnesota wanted to continue at this moment. I yield to him.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Does the Senator have an amendment she is trying to
dispose of?
Mrs. CLINTON. I am trying to propose the amendment, but I will lay it
aside, and I am not asking for a vote.
Amendment No. 466
Mr. WELLSTONE. I think we should probably go ahead and finish up on
the other amendment. How much time do we have?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Fifteen minutes and 57 minutes 30 seconds for
the other side.
Mr. WELLSTONE. May I ask the other side how much time they intend to
use?
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, if the Senator wanted to yield the time
back, I would urge my colleague from New Hampshire to yield his time
back.
Mr. WELLSTONE. I have a little time to summarize. If you all are
going to use a few minutes, then at the end I will go ahead and finish.
If you have a lot to say, I want to respond to your comments. All
right.
I thank the Senator from Massachusetts and the Senator from New
Hampshire.
Mr. President, I thank all of my colleagues who have come to the
Chamber and spoken on the amendment; quite a few Senators have. I thank
each and every one of them for some very powerful words. I almost
forget everybody, but Senator Dodd, Senator Murray, Senator Reed,
Senator Corzine, Senator Stabenow, I thank all of them.
This amendment says that the tests that are authorized under title I
need not be implemented until after we live up to our goal of
appropriating the $24 billion for title I. This is the amount the Dodd
amendment called for in authorization. I am not saying that Minnesota
or any other State can't go forward. They can do whatever they want.
What I am saying is, States have a right to say to us, if you don't
live up to your word to get us the resources to go with the testing,
then we decide whether we want to do this. The testing that is being
done post-1994 goes on. I am talking about the testing in this bill.
This amendment has endorsements from, among others, the Hispanic
Education Coalition, Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund,
NAACP, National Council of La Raza, National Education Association,
National Parent Teacher Association, National School Board Association.
In addition, we have a letter from Democratic Governors basically
saying, while we support the Carnahan/Nelson amendment, we are hopeful
that any final version to reauthorize ESEA will apply a funding trigger
more broadly, specifically to include title I, the argument being that
the Government needs to strengthen its accountability with adequate new
investment.
Colleagues, there is a reason that all these organizations that
represent the education community on the ground--I didn't include the
National Education Association as well--support this amendment, because
what they are saying is: Don't set us up for failure. If you are going
to mandate that every child in every grade will be tested every year,
grades 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8, then how about a Federal mandate that we
will have equality of opportunity for every child to be able to succeed
and do well on these tests? To not do so is ethically unjust.
This bill, right now, without the resources, without this amendment
passing, will test the poor against the rich and announce that the poor
failed. Federally required tests without federally required resources
for the children amounts to clubbing children over the head after we
have systematically cheated them. We already know in advance which
children are going to fail. This is a plan, without this amendment
passing, not for reform, not for equality, but for humiliation of
children.
How in the world can we continue to have the schools? They don't have
the resources. They have the large classes. All too often, it is two or
three or four teachers in a given year, much less the children living
in homes where they move two or three times a year. They come to
kindergarten way behind, not kindergarten ready. Quite often, they
don't have qualified teachers. They don't have the technology. They
don't have the resources. Then, in the absence of making the commitment
to making sure these children have a chance to do well, the only thing
we are going to do is require testing and fail them again.
This amendment is just saying, if we are going to have the testing,
we are going to provide the resources.
My friend Jonathan Kozol, who I think is the most powerful writer
about children in education today, says that testing is a symbolic
substitute for educating. Don't substitute a symbol for the real thing.
Kids who are cheated of Head Start--we fund 3 percent of the children
who could benefit from Early Head Start, barely 50 percent of the
children who are 4-year-olds. Children who are cheated of small
classes, cheated of well-paid teachers learn absolutely nothing from a
test every year except how much this Nation wants to embarrass and
punish them. That is what is wrong with having the testing without the
resources.
I hope the testing advocates do not assume that teachers are afraid
to be held accountable. Frankly, that is libel against teachers. No
good teacher is afraid to be held accountable for what she or he does.
I wish I had the time. I have e-mails from teachers all across the
country about this.
[[Page S5946]]
Accountability is a two-way street. What we have here is one-way
accountability. We want to have the tests every year, but we don't want
to be accountable to the words we have spoken. Seventy-nine Senators
went on record to vote for authorizing full funding for title I, for
disadvantaged children, in 10 years.
I see my colleague, the Senator from Minnesota, presiding. He would
say: Why 10 years? He is right. A 7-year-old will be 17 then. That is
too late. You only have your childhood once. Nevertheless, we went on
record, and that means that by 2005, we made a commitment of $25
billion for title I, which right now is funded at a 30-percent level.
So Senator Dayton, in St. Paul, when you get to a school with fewer
than 65 percent low-income children, they don't receive any funding--we
have run out already--money that could be used, especially with the
little children, for additional reading help, after school,
prekindergarten. What this amendment is saying is that 79 Senators
voted for that authorization. If that is what you did, and it was a
good vote for the Dodd-Collins amendment--Senator Dodd was here
speaking --then let's live up to our words.
Let's say that unless that money is appropriated--and I can see
Senators running ads: I voted to authorize full funding for the title I
program for the children in my State--knowing that the authorization
has nothing to do with whether there is money.
This amendment makes the words real. Let's not fool around with
people. Let's live up to our commitment, and let's make it clear; yes
to accountability, but we also are going to follow through when it
comes to living up to our commitment of resources.
I have heard Senators say if we talk the talk but we do not walk the
walk, we are going to fail our children. That is exactly what is wrong
with this bill that calls for the testing without the resources.
Testing and publishing test scores is talking, only talking.
Giving title I, supporting what we should be doing--fully funding
Head Start, making sure every child comes to kindergarten ready to
learn, getting the best teachers in the schools, providing additional
help for reading--that is walking. That is what this amendment is. This
is a walking amendment.
I say to Senators: It is time to walk. It is time to start walking.
It is time to start walking your talk. It is time to start living up to
what you said when you voted for the full funding for title I.
Let's be accountable. I have heard the majority of Senators say they
were going to fight for the resources to go with the testing. Now is
the time to do so.
I reserve the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I have listened to the Senator make a
very impassioned plea for funding the program, and I am all in
agreement with it. I feel, however, as if we are describing two
different bills.
The pending Senate bill already includes accountability. The bill
already includes testing. And, at the present time, under current law
there are already 15 States that are testing students every year, in
grades 3 through 8, in math and reading. There are 46 States that are
testing their students annually in at least two grades. States are
complying today with the 1994 law, and are being held accountable for
their progress, under provisions that describe adequate yearly progress
in Title I. This is nothing new.
The amount that those 15 States are spending on their statewide tests
is low. Many States are not investing the resources that they really
need to ensure high-quality assessments. According to the Education
Commission of the States, those 15 States only spend between $1.37 and
$17.16 per student annually on their assessments.
Under our legislation, the Jeffords amendment would ensure $69--do we
hear that?--$69 per student for States to develop their annual
assessments by the 2005-2006 school year, in reading and math for
students grades 3-8. According to the National Association of State
Boards of Education, it takes between $25 and $125 per student to
develop such assessments. $69 should be sufficient. Not $1, as exists
now, not $5, but $69.
The Wellstone amendment essentially eliminates requirements to
develop those assessments, and eliminates the promise that those high-
quality assessments may hold to produce the data that can drive school
reform. We are cutting off our nose to spite our face. Senator
Wellstone is thinking that, sometime in the future, we will eventually
begin this process of assessment. In reality, assessments are in place
now.
To say if we do not get full funding, if we miss it by $500 million,
what happens? We are not going to provide any of the accountability. If
we miss it by $300 million, we are not going to get it. With all
respect to my colleague from Connecticut, their amendment for full
funding was for 10 years. This amendment calls for full funding in 4
years. I am all for full funding in 4 years, if Senator wants to offer
an amendment that does not compromise essential reforms in the
underlying bill.
I have spoken with the President about this very subject. We ought to
increase funding for Title I, and double our present commitment to
cover two-thirds of the children, and the other third during his
administration. I have said it publicly, and I said it to the President
within the last 3 days.
I am going to continue to fight this fight, because I believe in the
Title I program. However, to say that at the end of the day we are not
going to be able to implement high quality tests that help us in the
reform process I do not understand. I just do not understand it because
tests are nothing new, we are currently assessing student progress for
accountability today, and more and more States are implementing a plan
similar to that which is in this underlying bill. Many States are not
implementing tests that are of high-quality. They are not doing very
well. We have seek in this bill to address that point.
We are not talking about the future. We have addressed the issue of
quality in the assessment process with the amendments that we have
taken. We want to improve upon States' current practice. We have tried
to accomplish that with the amendments to date, but that goal will not
be met by the pending amendment offered by the Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Five minutes 47 seconds.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Let me try to clear up the confusion of my good friend
from Massachusetts. First, part of what we talked about is whether or
not there should be full funding for the testing. I support the
Carnahan amendment. It was not adopted. I think it should have been
adopted.
The Senator talked about the Dodd amendment full funding in 10 years.
This amendment does not call for full funding by 2005. This amendment
tracks the Dodd amendment. This amendment is a 100-percent reflection
of what we have already gone on record supporting. I do not call for
full funding; $25 billion in 2005 is not full funding. This is exactly
what the Dodd amendment calls for as we reach full funding in 10 years.
As to the testing, it is true we are already testing. As a matter of
fact, this amendment does not talk about that testing. This amendment
talks about the fact that this bill, called the BEST bill, I say to my
colleague from Massachusetts, does not say title I children are tested.
It says every child in every school district in every State is tested
every year. That is quite a different piece of legislation in its
scope. Finally, one more time, the National Council of LaRaza, National
Education Association, National Parent Teacher Association, National
School Board Association, Democratic Governors--why in the world do you
think they support this? Because they have had enough of it. They have
had enough of us constantly putting more requirements on them without
backing it up with resources.
They are a little bit suspicious of the Congress. They think we are
great when it comes to telling them to do this, this, and this, but
they do not think we fully fund what we ask them to do, and they are
right.
That is why they support this, and they are right. They are saying if
you are going to have a national mandate that every child is tested,
then let's have a national mandate to make sure
[[Page S5947]]
every child has an opportunity to do well on those tests and make sure
you live up to your commitment on the title I programs, which is one of
the major Federal commitments--it is not a large part of education
money spent, but it is a real important piece when it comes to what our
commitment is.
This commitment just asks every Senator to walk the talk. You already
went on record saying you are for this. Now let's get real. This
amendment just says walk your talk.
I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield myself 3 minutes.
On page 43 under ``Assessments,'' this bill spells out the tests
which I mentioned earlier are statewide. There are currently 15 States
that are testing reading and math annually in grades 3 through 8.
Accountability in current law is based, at least partly, on these
tests that are currently being administered. Not all, but many of these
tests are not of the highest quality. They are not aligned with
standards. They are not valid and reliable measures. I want to make
them better. We have in place in this legislation, with the amendments
that have been accepted--the Jeffords amendment, the Wellstone
amendments, the Collins amendment.
The best estimate has been provided by the National Association of
State Boards of Education. They estimate that the cost of developing
high quality State tests, aligned to standards, in grades 3-8 ranges
from $25 to $125 per student. Our bill provides $69 per student. If
States do not receive the funds provided by the Jeffords amendment
under this bill for testing, they may suspend the development or
implementation of their tests.
The fact is, S. 1, when the President signs it, will contain
accountability provisions that will be driven by, as it says on page
43, existing tests under requirements that mirror current law. Many of
those tests are not of high quality. Some States are doing better than
others. I can understand why the President and our committee both want
to do better. To eliminate the possibility to do better, by warding off
assessments, does not make any sense to me.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, if the Senate lives up to its word and
we do exactly what we say we are going to do in the appropriations,
which is to provide the money for title I which provides the money for
the extra help for reading and afterschool and prekindergarten, nobody
loses.
I am calling everybody on their bluff on the words they have spoken.
I have not seen any firm commitment about money. I have not seen the
administration come forward with any commitment of resources to expand
title I to make sure we do our very best for these kids. I don't think
this program called BEST, is the best, unless we live up to our
commitment.
This should be easy for Senators to vote for. It just means that in
our appropriations we do exactly what we promised to do. How can anyone
vote against what was already voted for? How can Members vote against
an appropriation that is exactly the same thing Members voted for as an
authorization? What is wrong with saying, don't ask for me to vote for
testing every child throughout America in every school, which is what
Senator Dodd said? Start as young as age 8, unless you are also going
to give me a chance. Don't ask us to vote for a mandate of testing
every child without also letting us have an opportunity to pass
legislation which will assure we get the resources to the schools and
the teachers and kids so they can do well in these tests.
I don't believe that is an outrageous assumption. I stand for that. I
hope we get this through.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mr. GREGG. I associate myself with the comments of the Senator from
Massachusetts. There has been a significant amount of debate so I will
not carry it on. I reinforce the fact that the President has suggested
we extend the testing passed in 1994 to three additional grades. The
testing in 1994 required the curriculum be aligned and that the tests
be fairly pervasive. At the same time, when those tests were put in
place, there was no funding at all to support them.
This President has suggested that is not correct. He has put in place
$3 billion of new funding for the purposes of underwriting the costs of
these tests. In addition, he has suggested the most significant
increase of title I funding for the actual problematic side than any
President in the history of this country. He has suggested increases
that represent more than 50 percent of an increase in title I funding.
So the commitment is significant in the area of dollars.
Senator Kennedy hit the nail on the head. If this amendment passes,
essentially we are stepping backward on the issue of assessment. And we
are stepping backward, therefore, on the issue of finding out whether
or not low-income kids are getting fair treatment in our school
systems. That is what this is about.
Will we have in place a procedure for determining whether or not our
low-income children are getting fair treatment? The only way to do that
is through a testing regime in the form outlined in this bill. If we
abandon that testing regime, for all intents and purposes, we are going
back to the present status quo which has produced 35 years of failure.
We know it is not working. It is time to make the changes proposed in
this bill. Regrettably, the Wellstone amendment takes us backward,
rather than forward, in that effort.
I yield back the remainder of our time on our side.
Mr. WELLSTONE. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to the amendment. The clerk will call the
roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer),
the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Miller), and the Senator from New Jersey
(Mr. Torricelli), are necessarily absent. I further announce that, if
present and voting, the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer) would vote
``aye.''
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Crapo), the
Senator from Utah (Mr. Hatch), and the Senator from Arizona (Mr.
McCain) are necessarily absent.
I further announce that if present and voting, the Senator from Utah
(Mr. Hatch) would vote ``nay'.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 23, nays 71, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 176 Leg.]
YEAS--23
Akaka
Biden
Cantwell
Carnahan
Clinton
Corzine
Dayton
Dodd
Durbin
Feingold
Graham
Harkin
Hollings
Kerry
Leahy
Levin
Murray
Nelson (NE)
Reed
Reid
Sarbanes
Stabenow
Wellstone
NAYS--71
Allard
Allen
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Bingaman
Bond
Breaux
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Carper
Chafee
Cleland
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Craig
Daschle
DeWine
Domenici
Dorgan
Edwards
Ensign
Enzi
Feinstein
Fitzgerald
Frist
Gramm
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Helms
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
McConnell
Mikulski
Murkowski
Nelson (FL)
Nickles
Roberts
Rockefeller
Santorum
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Voinovich
Warner
Wyden
NOT VOTING--6
Boxer
Crapo
Hatch
McCain
Miller
Torricelli
The amendment (No. 466) was rejected.
Mr. KENNEDY. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. DORGAN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Order of Procedure
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I have just talked to the majority
leader. And
[[Page S5948]]
I see our deputy leader and our Republican floor manager. We had been
talking during the course of the afternoon, and hopefully we will have
a pathway which will lead us to two votes, I believe, on Monday night
and then hopefully set the stage for our Tuesday deliberations.
I heard from our leader, if we are able to work that out, there might
not be further votes this evening. But this is underway. I just hope
the membership can give us a minute or two to see if that can be put in
a unanimous consent agreement. We will do that just as rapidly as
possible.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to lay aside the
pending amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 516 To Amendment No. 358
Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 516.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from New York [Mrs. Clinton], for herself, Mr.
Torricelli, and Mr. Corzine, proposes an amendment numbered
516.
Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To provide for the conduct of a study concerning the health
and learning impacts of sick and dilapidated public school buildings on
children)
On page 586, between lines 18 and 19, insert the following:
SEC. ____. STUDY CONCERNING THE HEALTH AND LEARNING IMPACTS
OF SICK AND DILAPIDATED PUBLIC SCHOOL BUILDINGS
ON AMERICA'S CHILDREN.
Title IV, as amended by this title, is further amended by
adding at the end the following:
``PART E--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
``SEC. 4501. STUDY CONCERNING THE HEALTH AND LEARNING IMPACTS
OF SICK AND DILAPIDATED PUBLIC SCHOOL BUILDINGS
ON AMERICA'S CHILDREN.
``(a) Study Authorized.--The Secretary of Education, in
conjunction with the Director of the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention and in consultation with the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, shall
conduct a study on the health and learning impacts of sick
and dilapidated public school buildings on children that have
attended or are attending such schools.
``(b) Study Specifications.--The following information
shall be included in the study conducted under subsection
(a):
``(1) The characteristics of public elementary and
secondary school buildings that contribute to unhealthy
school environments, including the prevalence of such
characteristics in public elementary and secondary school
buildings. Such characteristics may include school buildings
that--
``(A) have been built on contaminated property;
``(B) have poor in-door air quality;
``(C) have occurrences of mold;
``(D) have ineffective ventilation, heating or cooling
systems, inadequate lighting, drinking water that does not
meet health-based standards, infestations of rodents,
insects, or other animals that may carry or cause disease;
``(E) have dust or debris from crumbling structures or
construction efforts; and
``(F) have been subjected to an inappropriate use of
pesticides, insecticides, chemicals, or cleaners, lead-based
paint, or asbestos or have radon or such other
characteristics as determined by the Director of the Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention to indicate an unhealthy
school environment.
``(2) The health and leaning impacts of sick and
dilapidated public school buildings on students that are
attending or that have attended a school described in
subsection (a), including information on the rates of such
impacts where available. Such health impacts may include
higher than expected incidence of injury, infectious disease,
or chronic disease, such as asthma, allergies, elevated blood
lead levels, behavioral disorders, or ultimately cancer. Such
learning impacts may include lower levels of student
achievement, inability of students to concentrate, and other
educational indicators.
``(3) Recommendations to Congress on the development and
implementation of public health and environmental standards
for constructing new public elementary and secondary school
buildings, remediating existing public school buildings, and
the overall monitoring of public school building health,
including cost estimates for the development and
implementation of such standards and a cost estimate of
bringing all public schools up to such standards.
``(4) The identification of the existing gaps in
information regarding the health of public elementary and
secondary school buildings and the health and learning
impacts on students that attend unhealthy public schools,
including recommendations for obtaining such information.
``(c) Study Completion.--The study under subsection (a)
shall be completed by the earlier of--
``(1) not later than 18 months after the date of enactment
of this Act; or
``(2) not later than December 31, 2002.
``(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated $2,000,000 for fiscal year 2002 for the
conduct of the study under subsection (a).''.
Amendment No. 516, As Modified
Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to modify the
amendment and send the modification to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment (No. 516), as modified, is as follows:
On page 586, between lines 18 and 19, insert the following:
SEC. ____. STUDY CONCERNING THE HEALTH AND LEARNING IMPACTS
OF SICK AND DILAPIDATED PUBLIC SCHOOL BUILDINGS
ON AMERICA'S CHILDREN AND THE HEALTHY AND HIGH
PERFORMANCE SCHOOLS PROGRAM.
Title IV, as amended by this title, is further amended by
adding at the end the following:
``PART E--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
``SEC. 4501. STUDY CONCERNING THE HEALTH AND LEARNING IMPACTS
OF SICK AND DILAPIDATED PUBLIC SCHOOL BUILDINGS
ON AMERICA'S CHILDREN.
``(a) Study Authorized.--The Secretary of Education, in
conjunction with the Director of the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention and in consultation with the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, shall
conduct a study on the health and learning impacts of sick
and dilapidated public school buildings on children that have
attended or are attending such schools.
``(b) Study Specifications.--The following information
shall be included in the study conducted under subsection
(a):
``(1) The characteristics of public elementary and
secondary school buildings that contribute to unhealthy
school environments, including the prevalence of such
characteristics in public elementary and secondary school
buildings. Such characteristics may include school buildings
that--
``(A) have been built on contaminated property;
``(B) have poor in-door air quality;
``(C) have occurrences of mold;
``(D) have ineffective ventilation, heating or cooling
systems, inadequate lighting, drinking water that does not
meet health-based standards, infestations of rodents,
insects, or other animals that may carry or cause disease;
``(E) have dust or debris from crumbling structures or
construction efforts; and
``(F) have been subjected to an inappropriate use of
pesticides, insecticides, chemicals, or cleaners, lead-based
paint, or asbestos or have radon or such other
characteristics as determined by the Director of the Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention to indicate an unhealthy
school environment.
``(2) The health and leaning impacts of sick and
dilapidated public school buildings on students that are
attending or that have attended a school described in
subsection (a), including information on the rates of such
impacts where available. Such health impacts may include
higher than expected incidence of injury, infectious disease,
or chronic disease, such as asthma, allergies, elevated blood
lead levels, behavioral disorders, or ultimately cancer. Such
learning impacts may include lower levels of student
achievement, inability of students to concentrate, and other
educational indicators.
``(3) Recommendations to Congress on the development and
implementation of public health and environmental standards
for constructing new public elementary and secondary school
buildings, remediating existing public school buildings, and
the overall monitoring of public school building health,
including cost estimates for the development and
implementation of such standards and a cost estimate of
bringing all public schools up to such standards.
``(4) The identification of the existing gaps in
information regarding the health of public elementary and
secondary school buildings and the health and learning
impacts on students that attend unhealthy public schools,
including recommendations for obtaining such information.
``(c) Study Completion.--The study under subsection (a)
shall be completed by the earlier of--
``(1) not later than 18 months after the date of enactment
of this Act; or
``(2) not later than December 31, 2002.
``(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated $2,000,000 for fiscal year 2002 for the
conduct of the study under subsection (a).
[[Page S5949]]
``SEC. 4502. HEALTHY AND HIGH PERFORMANCE SCHOOLS PROGRAM.
``(a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the
`Healthy and High Performance Schools Act of 2001'.
``(b) Purpose.--It is the purpose of this section to assist
local educational agencies in the production of high
performance elementary school and secondary school buildings
that are healthful, productive, energy-efficient, and
environmentally sound.
``(c) Program Establishment and Administration.--
``(1) Program.--There is established in the Department of
Education the High Performance Schools Program (in this
section referred to as the `Program').
``(2) Grants.--The Secretary, in consultation with the
Secretary of Energy and the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency, may, through the Program,
award grants to State educational agencies to permit such
State educational agencies to carry out paragraph (3).
``(3) State use of funds.--
``(A) Subgrants.--
``(i) In general.--A State educational agency receiving a
grant under this section shall use the grant funds made
available under subsection (d)(1)(A) to award subgrants to
local educational agencies to permit such local educational
agencies to carry out the activities described in paragraph
(4).
``(ii) Limitation.--A State educational agency shall award
subgrants under clause (i) to local educational agencies that
have made a commitment to use the subgrant funds to develop
healthy, high performance school buildings in accordance with
the plan developed and approved pursuant to clause (iii)(I).
``(iii) Implementation.--
``(I) Plans.--A State educational agency shall award
subgrants under subparagraph (A) only to local educational
agencies that, in consultation with the State educational
agency and State offices with responsibilities relating to
energy and health, have developed plans that the State
educational agency determines to be feasible and appropriate
in order to achieve the purposes for which such subgrants are
made.
``(II) Supplementing grant funds.--The State educational
agency shall encourage qualifying local educational agencies
to supplement their subgrant funds with funds from other
sources in the implementation of their plans.
``(B) Administration.--A State educational agency receiving
a grant under this section shall use the grant funds made
available under subsection (d)(1)(B)--
``(i) to evaluate compliance by local educational agencies
with the requirements of this section;
``(ii) to distribute information and materials to clearly
define and promote the development of healthy, high
performance school buildings for both new and existing
facilities;
``(iii) to organize and conduct programs for school board
members, school district personnel, architects, engineers,
and others to advance the concepts of healthy, high
performance school buildings;
``(iv) to obtain technical services and assistance in
planning and designing high performance school buildings; and
``(v) to collect and monitor information pertaining to the
high performance school building projects funded under this
section.
``(C) Promotion.--Subject to subsection (d)(1), a State
educational agency receiving a grant under this section may
use grant funds for promotional and marketing activities,
including facilitating private and public financing, working
with school administrations, students, and communities, and
coordinating public benefit programs.
``(4) Local use of funds.--
``(A) In general.--A local educational agency receiving a
subgrant under paragraph (3)(A) shall use such subgrant funds
for new school building projects and renovation projects
that--
``(i) achieve energy-efficiency performance that reduces
energy use to at least 30 percent below that of a school
constructed in compliance with standards prescribed in
Chapter 8 of the 2000 International Energy Conservation Code,
or a similar State code intended to achieve substantially
equivalent results; and
``(ii) achieve environmentally healthy schools in
compliance with Federal and State codes intended to achieve
healthy and safe school environments.
``(B) Existing buildings.--A local educational agency
receiving a subgrant under paragraph (3)(A) for renovation of
existing school buildings shall use such subgrant funds to
achieve energy efficiency performance that reduces energy use
below the school's baseline consumption, assuming a 3-year,
weather-normalized average for calculating such baseline and
to help bring schools into compliance with health and safety
standards.
``(d) Allocation of Funds.--
``(1) In general.--A State receiving a grant under this
section shall use--
``(A) not less than 70 percent of such grant funds to carry
out subsection (c)(3)(A); and
``(B) not less than 15 percent of such grant funds to carry
out subsection (c)(3)(B).
``(2) Reservation.--The Secretary may reserve an amount not
to exceed $300,000 per year from amounts appropriated under
subsection (f) to assist State educational agencies in
coordinating and implementing the Program. Such funds may be
used to develop reference materials to further define the
principles and criteria to achieve healthy, high performance
school buildings.
``(e) Report to Congress.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall conduct a biennial
review of State actions implementing this section, and shall
report to Congress on the results of such reviews.
``(2) Reviews.--In conducting such reviews, the Secretary
shall assess the effectiveness of the calculation procedures
used by State educational agencies in establishing
eligibility of local educational agencies for subgrants under
this section, and may assess other aspects of the Program to
determine whether the aspects have been effectively
implemented.
``(f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are
authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary to carry out
this section--
``(1) $250,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2002 through
2005; and
``(2) such sums as may be necessary for each of fiscal
years 2006 through 2011.
``(g) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) Healthy, high performance school building.--The term
`healthy, high performance school building' means a school
building which, in its design, construction, operation, and
maintenance, maximizes use of renewable energy and energy-
efficient practices, is cost-effective on a life cycle basis,
uses affordable, environmentally preferable, durable
materials, enhances indoor environmental quality, protects
and conserves water, and optimizes site potential.
``(2) Renewable energy.--The term `renewable energy' means
energy produced by solar, wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, or
biomass power.''.
Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I rise today to focus the attention of
my colleagues and our country on the environmental health and energy
efficiency of our Nation's schools.
Throughout this debate, we have come to the floor to propose
solutions for improving student achievement and ensuring that all of
our children are provided with a world-class education. I am very
pleased that we have made a lot of progress in coming to consensus on
some basic tenets--that all children should be guaranteed an education
focused around high academic standards, that every child should be
taught by a quality teacher, and that we should hold educators
accountable for making sure their students can meet these high
standards.
There is something we have not yet addressed; that is, to ensure that
our children attend schools that are in good working condition and that
are conducive to their learning and not detrimental to their health. I
was disappointed that we were not successful in our efforts to provide
needed Federal support for repairs and renovations to modernize our
schools, and we have done a disservice to many of our children.
In the State of New York, for example, we have children who attend
schools that are in deplorable condition. Approximately 67 percent of
all the schools in New York have at least one inadequate building
feature. That can mean a leaky roof or poor plumbing or electrical
shortages, windows that are broken, heating, ventilating, air-
conditioning systems that just don't work. What I hope we can do is to
take a hard look at what the effects of these building conditions are
on our children. We have children in New York attending classes in
school buildings that average 50 years of age. In upstate New York the
average is 38. These are the problems that are brought to my attention
every single day--leaking roofs and bad filtration conditions that are
beginning to demonstrate health problems in the schools.
In central New York, the Council for Occupational Health and Safety
began receiving complaints from teachers and students about a
particular school. When the director inspected the building, he
discovered that the air filtration system was filled with hundreds of
colonies of fungus and that another part of the system was filled with
stagnant water. At another school in Cohoes, NY, near Albany, the
ventilation problem in the city's middle school was so bad that the
school administration banned the use of chalk because the dust hung in
the air, making it difficult for students and teachers to breathe.
I recently received an e-mail from a father in Schenectady, NY. He
wrote me the following:
My children attend school in the city of Schenectady. At
the 90-year-old elementary school they attend, peeling lead-
based paint, a malfunctioning heat system resulting in 80-90
degree classroom temperatures, and general disrepair have
been the norm for years. There have been persistent roof
leaks, resulting in molds growing in the building.
Maintenance of playgrounds to conform to
[[Page S5950]]
safety standards has been neglected. Many of these problems
continue to exist today. I believe that the primary cause of
this is the highly constrained financial resources that are
available in aging, low- to moderate-income urban
communities.
This morning, the Rochester Democrat and Chronicle reported that
tomorrow in Pittsford, NY, there will be a 3-hour public forum on the
impact that environmental hazards in school buildings have on teachers
and students. This forum in Pittsford is part of a series of EPA
informational sessions on environmental problems in our schools. These
stories from New York reflect a serious problem across our country.
A 1996 GAO study found that 15,000 schools in the United States have
indoor pollution or ventilation problems affecting over 11 million
children. Furthermore, as many as 25 million students nationwide are
attending schools with at least one unsatisfactory environmental
condition.
This is something I don't think we can afford to ignore because
indoor air can have an even greater effect on children than the air
they breathe outside. The EPA warns that Americans spend 90 percent of
our time indoors. With children spending much of their day inside
schools, that pollution can add up, and it can be a greater stress on
them than anything they encounter outside. We know that poor indoor air
quality severely impacts children's health.
According to the American Lung Association, asthma accounts for 10
million lost schooldays annually and is the leading cause of school
absenteeism attributed to a chronic condition. Furthermore, a survey
conducted by New York City Health Schools Working Group found that 40
percent of schoolchildren who had a preexisting condition, such as
asthma, worsened from their being in school.
In addition to facing poor air quality, we also know that our
children are exposed to chemicals, lead paint, and other hazardous
substances. In fact, the GAO found in their 1996 study that two-thirds
of schools were not in compliance with requirements to remove or
correct hazardous substances, including asbestos, lead, underground
storage tanks, and radon. And experts believe that exposure during
childhood, when children are developing, may have severe long-term
effects.
In Monroe County, NY, a group called Rochesterians Against the Misuse
of Pesticides have been doing surveys of indoor and outdoor pesticide
use by schools since 1987. That latest survey in 1999 showed that
schools in Rochester were using 72 different pesticides. That is, as
one member of the group said, a real chemical soup to which our
children are being subjected.
What I am hoping is that we can build on the work that has been done
in some places, such as Rochester, and the Healthy Schools Network in
Albany, NY, and try to find out more about what happens to our
children's health inside our schools.
The American Public Health Association recently passed a resolution
calling for further research on the extent and impact of children's
environmental health and safety risks and exposures at schools and
prevention measures, including research sponsored by the U.S.
Department of Education.
My amendment would authorize $2 million for a study conducted by the
Department of Education in conjunction with the Centers for Disease
Control and the Environmental Protection Agency to evaluate the health
and learning impacts of sick and dilapidated public school buildings on
the children who attend those schools.
This study would specifically call for researchers to determine the
characteristics of our public schools that contribute to unhealthy
environments, including the prevalence of such characteristics as the
ones I have just mentioned in our elementary and secondary school
buildings. How can we better monitor the situation and what steps can
we take or help our local school districts take to remedy this
situation?
Hand in hand with our environmental health is the issue of energy
efficiency because many of the problems are from old ventilating
systems, old heating systems that are not in working order and cause
health problems, as well as costing more in energy than should be the
norm.
In this amendment, we are asking that we help our schools deal with
their energy costs. The U.S. Department of Energy estimates that
schools can save 25 to 30 percent of the money they currently spend on
energy--namely, about $1.5 billion--through better building design and
use of energy-efficient appliances, renewable energy technologies, and
just plain improvements to operations and maintenance.
I recently visited the John F. Kennedy Elementary School in Kingston,
NY. It is leading the way in our State in making schools more energy
efficient and saving money. In fact, last year, the Kingston School
District saved $395,000 through energy-efficient upgrades.
When I was there, I released a brochure that we are sending to every
school superintendent in New York called ``Smart Schools Save Energy,
Promoting Energy Efficiency in New York State Schools,'' with a lot of
good ideas about how to go about making the schools energy efficient
and saving money to be used on computers or other important needs of
the school.
What we have been told is that many school personnel want to do what
is being recommended in this brochure and is known to many school
districts, but they need a little bit of help to do it. They need that
startup grant money that will enable them to make the changes that will
save them money. This amendment would provide grants to States to help
districts make their buildings healthier and more energy efficient.
By incorporating provisions of legislation I recently introduced, the
Healthy and High Performance Schools Act of 2001, this amendment would
provide funds for States to provide information and materials to
schools, help States organize, and conduct programs for school board
members, school district personnel, architects, engineers, and others,
and would help bring our schools up to code, the codes that will make
our schools healthier and a better investment when it comes to energy
usage, to install insulation, energy-efficient fixtures, and the like.
With these Federal funds, we can make our schools more energy
efficient which can save money which can then be used to reinvestment
in our children's education that all of us in this body support.
I thank Senators Kennedy and Gregg for the opportunity to offer this
important amendment. I also reference the energy legislation that has
been introduced by Senators Murkowski and Bingaman which include
provisions to bring this about.
I appreciate the opportunity for the entire Senate to vote on this
amendment which will be a healthy vote as well as an energy-efficient
vote on behalf of our children. No parent should have to worry about
sending a child to school because it is a health risk. No school
district should have to worry more about paying the lighting bill or
the heating bill than paying their teachers.
Understanding the effects of unhealthy classrooms and school
buildings and moving toward energy efficiency goes hand in hand with
the high standards we set in this bill. I urge all of my colleagues to
vote for healthy schools, energy-efficient schools, and better
educational outcomes for all of our children.
I ask unanimous consent that my amendment be laid aside and await a
vote which I hope we will be able to schedule for next week. I yield
back the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The
Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New York for
giving focus to two extremely important issues. One deals with the
inefficiencies in many of the older schools, in urban and rural areas.
This is something that should be done. It is not being done. It is
particularly important to consider since we have been unable to accept
a school construction amendment that would deal with the modernization
of our schools.
With all the challenges we are facing in energy efficiency, having
visited so many of the schools in many of the older communities in my
own State, this is something that can make an enormous difference. I do
not know whether the Senator has had the experience, but in
Massachusetts we had an energy expert come in and look at our
[[Page S5951]]
home down on Cape Cod. The recommendations they made and the savings
that could be achieved were truly remarkable. We are not getting that
kind of evaluation which is available in the private sector in the
school districts. We hope school districts will go ahead.
The Senator's amendment recognizes there are other priorities for
school boards, and there is a national interest in having greater
efficiency.
In the area of health, this is enormously important. I think all of
us--I know the Senator has--worked in the area of lead paint poisoning
and the impact that has particularly on smaller children, situations
where older children bring the lead paint dust back to their homes, and
they can be consumed by infants and the potential health hazards to
these children is dramatic.
There is asbestos, radon, and new chemicals which we all know about
in the industrial areas that are being given attention in OSHA. The
schools are increasingly exposed to these challenges. It is having an
impact.
I commend the Senator for bringing this up. In Woburn, MA--the
Senator probably read the book ``A Civil Action,'' or saw the movie on
it. We had the greatest concentration of children's leukemia in the
country. It was in a very narrow area. This was adjacent to conditions
which were illustrated in ``A Civil Action.'' The families who were
involved were similar in situations.
We knew a certain distance upstream from where the wells were they
were dumping these old wooden casks which had been filled with acids
used in tanneries in Lynn where they process it, and some magnificent
leather products were produced there. But they were dumping, and these
wells were anywhere from 10 to 15 miles downstream. There were open
wells, and families were using the wells, and the children were getting
leukemia. It was as certain as we are standing here, it was related to
these chemical problems. We had the best toxicologists in the world
examine the water, and they could not find anything wrong with it--
nothing. The best from CDC, the best universities and toxicologists,
have never been able to detect a particular ingredient that caused it,
but we knew it was happening.
The Senator is pointing out what I have seen. We know it is happening
in some schools. The children are getting sick, it is affecting their
ability to learn. We can benefit from this effort.
I thank the Senator and look forward to supporting this amendment
when we have a chance. I urge our colleagues to accept it. I thank her
for bringing it to the floor this evening.
Mr. REID. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Clinton). The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate
resume consideration of S. 1 on Monday, June 11, at 2:30, and Senator
Bond be recognized to call up amendment No. 476, with 30 minutes for
debate, equally divided in the usual form, with no second-degree
amendments in order; following debate, the amendment be laid aside and
Senator Landrieu be recognized to call up amendment No. 475 regarding
title I, with 2 hours equally divided in the usual form, with no
second-degree amendments in order.
Further, that at 5:15 the Senate vote in relation to Landrieu
amendment No. 475; and, following the disposition of the Landrieu
amendment, there be 4 minutes for closing debate to a vote in relation
to the Bond amendment No. 476.
Further, on Tuesday, June 12, the Senate resume consideration of the
education bill at 9:30, and Senator Gregg be recognized to call up
amendment No. 536, and there be 4 hours of debate equally divided, with
no second-degree amendments in order.
Further, following the disposition of the Gregg amendment, Senator
Carper be recognized to call up amendment No. 518, with no second-
degree amendments in order, and there be 2 hours of debate equally
divided; that upon the use of the time, the Senate vote in relation to
the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. KENNEDY. In light of this agreement, there will be no further
rollcalls this evening. There will be two rollcall votes beginning at
5:15 on Monday, June 11.
Amendments Nos. 557, as modified, 483, as modified, 404, as modified,
556, as modified, 624, as modified, 548, and 415, en bloc, to amendment
358
Mr. KENNEDY. I have a package of cleared amendments. I ask unanimous
consent it be in order for those amendments to be considered en bloc,
any applicable modifications be agreed to, the amendments be agreed to,
and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, en bloc.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report the amendments, en bloc:
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] proposes
amendments Nos. 557, 483, 404, 556, 624, 548, and 415.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendments,
en bloc.
The amendments were agreed to, as follows:
AMENDMENT NO. 557 AS MODIFIED
(Purpose: To provide additional limitations on national testing of
students, national testing and certification of teachers, and the
collection of personally identifiable information)
On page 29, between lines 14 and 15, insert the following:
``SEC. 16. ADDITIONAL LIMITATIONS.
``(a) National Testing.--
``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
this Act or any other provision of law, and except as
provided in paragraph (2), no funds available to the
Department or otherwise available under this Act may be used
for any purpose relating to a nationwide test in reading,
mathematics, or any other subject, including test
development, pilot testing, field testing, test
implementation, test administration, test distribution, or
any other purpose.
``(2) Exception.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply to the
following:
``(A) The National Assessment of Educational Progress
carried out under sections 411 through 413 of the Improving
America's Schools Act of 1994 (20 U.S.C. 9010-9012).
``(B) The Third International Math and Science Study
(TIMSS).
``(b) Mandatory National Testing or Certification of
Teachers.--Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act or
any other provision of law, no funds available to the
Department or otherwise available under this Act may be used
for any purpose relating to a mandatory nationwide test or
certification of teachers or education paraprofessionals,
including any planning, development, implementation, or
administration of such test or certification.
``(c) Development of Database of Personally Identifiable
Information.--Nothing in this Act (other than section
1308(b)) shall be construed to authorize the development of a
nationwide database of personally identifiable information on
individuals involved in studies or other collections of data
under this Act.''.
____
AMENDMENT NO. 483 AS MODIFIED
(Purpose: To establish a National Panel on Teacher Mobility)
Beginning on page 380, strike line 5 and all that follows
through page 383, line 21, and insert the following:
SEC. 202. TEACHER MOBILITY.
(a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the
``Teacher Mobility Act''.
(b) Mobility of Teachers.--Title II of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6601 et seq.), as
amended by section 201, is further amended by adding at the
end the following:
``PART D--TEACHER MOBILITY
``SEC. 2401. NATIONAL PANEL ON TEACHER MOBILITY.
``(a) Establishment.--There is established a panel to be
known as the National Panel on Teacher Mobility (referred to
in this section as the `panel').
``(b) Membership.--The panel shall be composed of 9 members
appointed by the Secretary. The Secretary shall appoint the
members from among practitioners and experts with experience
relating to teacher mobility, such as teachers, members of
teacher certification or licensing bodies, faculty of
institutions of higher education that prepare teachers, and
State policymakers with such experience.
``(c) Period of Appointment; Vacancies.--Members shall be
appointed for the life of the panel. Any vacancy in the panel
shall not affect the powers of the panel, but shall be filled
in the same manner as the original appointment.
[[Page S5952]]
``(d) Duties.--
``(1) Study.--
``(A) In general.--The panel shall study strategies for
increasing mobility and employment opportunities for high
quality teachers, especially for States with teacher
shortages and States with districts or schools that are
difficult to staff.
``(B) Data and analysis.--As part of the study, the panel
shall evaluate the desirability and feasibility of State
initiatives that support teacher mobility by collecting data
and conducting effective analysis on--
``(i) teacher supply and demand;
``(ii) the development of recruitment and hiring strategies
that support teachers; and
``(iii) increasing reciprocity of licenses across States.
``(2) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date on
which all members of the panel have been appointed, the panel
shall submit to the Secretary and to the appropriate
committees of Congress a report containing the results of the
study.
``(e) Powers.--
``(1) Hearings.--The panel may hold such hearings, sit and
act at such times and places, take such testimony, and
receive such evidence as the panel considers advisable to
carry out the objectives of this section.
``(2) Information from federal agencies.--The panel may
secure directly from any Federal department or agency such
information as the panel considers necessary to carry out the
provisions of this section. Upon request of a majority of the
members of the panel, the head of such department or agency
shall furnish such information to the panel.
``(3) Postal services.--The panel may use the United States
mails in the same manner and under the same conditions as
other departments and agencies of the Federal Government.
``(f) Personnel.--
``(1) Travel expenses.--The members of the panel shall not
receive compensation for the performance of services for the
panel, but shall be allowed travel expenses, including per
diem in lieu of subsistence, at rates authorized for
employees of agencies under subchapter I of chapter 57 of
title 5, United States Code, while away from their homes or
regular places of business in the performance of services for
the panel. Notwithstanding section 1342 of title 31, United
States Code, the Secretary may accept the voluntary and
uncompensated services of members of the panel.
``(2) Detail of government employees.--Any Federal
Government employee may be detailed to the panel without
reimbursement, and such detail shall be without interruption
or loss of civil service status or privilege.
``(g) Permanent Committee.--Section 14 of the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) shall not apply to the
panel.
``(h) Authorization of Appropriations.--
``(1) In general.--There is authorized to be appropriated
to carry out this section such sums as may be necessary for
fiscal year 2002.
``(2) Availability.--Any sums appropriated under the
authorization contained in this subsection shall remain
available, without fiscal year limitation, until expended.''.
____
AMENDMENT NO. 404 AS MODIFIED
(Purpose: To provide for the funding of suicide prevention programs)
On page 507, line 4, strike ``and''.
On page 507, line 6, strike the period and insert ``;
and''.
On page 507, between lines 6 and 7, insert the following:
``(5) $25,000,000 for fiscal year 2002, and such sums as
may be necessary for each of the 6 succeeding fiscal years to
carry out section 4126.''.
On page 565, between lines 18 and 19, insert the following:
``SEC. 4126. SUICIDE PREVENTION PROGRAMS.
``(a) Grants Authorized.--
``(1) Authority.--The Secretary is authorized to award
grants and contracts to elementary schools and secondary
schools for the purpose of--
``(A) developing and implementing suicide prevention
programs; and
``(B) to provide training to school administrators,
faculty, and staff, with respect to identifying the warning
signs of suicide and creating a plan of action for helping
those at risk.
``(2) Award basis.--The Secretary shall award grants and
contracts under this section--
``(A) on a competitive basis;
``(B) in a manner that complies with the requirements under
subsection (c) of section 520E of the Public Health Service
Act; and
``(C) in a manner that ensures that such grants and
contracts are equitably distributed throughout a State among
elementary schools and secondary schools located in rural,
urban, and suburban areas in the State.
``(3) Policy dissemination.--The Secretary shall
disseminate to elementary schools and secondary schools any
Department of Education policy guidance regarding the
prevention of suicide.
``(b) Uses of Funds.--Funds provided under this section may
be used for the following purposes:
``(1) To provide training for elementary school and
secondary school administrators, faculty, and staff with
respect to identifying the warning signs of suicide and
creating a plan of action for helping those at risk.
``(2) To provide education programs for elementary school
and secondary school students that are developmentally
appropriate for the students' grade levels and are designed
to meet any unique cultural and language needs of the
particular student populations.
``(3) To conduct evaluations to assess the impact of
programs and policies assisted under this section in order to
enhance the development of the programs.
``(c) Confidentiality.--Policies, programs, training
materials, and evaluations developed and implemented under
subsection (b) shall address issues of safety and
confidentiality for the victim and the victim's family in a
manner consistent with applicable Federal and State laws.
``(d) Application.--
``(1) In general.--To be eligible to be awarded a grant or
contract under this section for any fiscal year, an
elementary school or secondary school shall submit an
application to the Secretary at such time and in such manner
as the Secretary shall prescribe.
``(2) Contents.--Each application submitted under paragraph
(1) shall--
``(A) describe the need for funds provided under the grant
or contract and the plan for implementation of any of the
activities described in subsection (b);
``(B) provide measurable goals for and expected results
from the use of the funds provided under the grant or
contract; and
``(C) incorporate appropriate remuneration for
collaborating partners.
``(e) Applicability.--The provisions of this part (other
than this section) shall not apply to this section.''.
____
amendment no. 556 as modified
(Purpose: To provide additional protections and limitations regarding
private schools, religious schools, and home schools)
On page 29, between lines 14 and 15, insert the following:
``SEC. 16. ADDITIONAL LIMITATIONS AND PROTECTIONS REGARDING
PRIVATE, RELIGIOUS, AND HOME SCHOOLS.
``(a) Applicability to Home Schools.--Nothing in this Act
shall be construed to affect home schools, whether or not a
home school is treated as a home school or a private school
under State law or to require any home schooled student to
participate in any assessment referenced in this Act.
``(2) Construction of superseded provision.--Section 11
shall have no force or effect.
``(b) Applicability to Private Schools.--Nothing in this
Act shall be construed to affect any private school that does
not receive funds or services under this Act, or to require
any student who attends a private school that does not
receive funds or services under this Act to participate in
any assessment referenced in this Act.
``(c) Applicability to Private, Religions, and Home Schools
of General Provision Regarding Recipient Nonpublic Schools.--
``(1) In general.--Nothing in this Act or any other Act
administered by the Secretary shall be construed to permit,
allow, encourage, or authorize any Federal control over any
aspect of any private, religious, or home school, whether or
not a home school is treated as a private school or home
school under State law. This section shall not be construed
to bar private, religious, and home schools from
participation in programs and services under this Act.
``(2) Construction of superseded provision.--Section 12
shall have no force or effect.
``(d) Applicability of Gun-Free School Provisions to Home
Schools.--Notwithstanding any provision of part B of title
IV, for purposes of that part, the term `school' shall not
include a home school, regardless of whether or not a home
school is treated as a private school or home school under
State law.
``(e) State and LEA Mandates Regarding Private and Home
School Curricula.--Nothing in this Act shall be construed to
require any State or local educational agency that receives
funds under this Act from mandating, directing, or
controlling the curriculum of a private or home school,
regardless of whether or not a home school is treated as a
private school or home school under State law, nor shall any
funds under this Act be used for this purpose.''
____
AMENDMENT NO. 624 AS MODIFIED
(Purpose: To provide for the identification and recognition of
exemplary schools, and for demonstration projects to evaluate the
performance of such Blue Ribbon Schools)
On page 776, line 17, strike ``education'' and all that
follows through the end of line 19 and insert the following:
``education and the identification and recognition of
exemplary schools and programs such as Blue Ribbon Schools,
that are designed to promote the improvement of elementary
and secondary education nationally.
`` `(e) Blue Ribbon Schools Dissemination Demonstration.--
`` `(1) In general.--The Secretary shall conduct
demonstration projects to evaluate the effectiveness of using
the best practices of Blue Ribbon Schools to improve the
educational outcomes of elementary and secondary schools that
fail to make adequate yearly progress, as defined in the plan
of the State under section 1111(b)(2)(B).
[[Page S5953]]
`` `(2) Report to congress.--Not later than 3 years after
the date on which the Secretary implements the initial
demonstration projects under subsection (a), the Secretary
shall submit to Congress a report regarding the effectiveness
of the demonstration projects.
`` `(3) Authorization of appropriations.--There is
authorized to be appropriated to carry out this subsection
$7,500,000 for fiscal year 2002, and such sums as may be
necessary in each of the 7 fiscal years thereafter.''.
____
amendment no. 548
(Purpose: To limit the application of the bill)
At the appropriate place, add the following:
``Sec. . (a) Whereas the Bible is the best selling, most
widely read, and most influential book in history;
(b) Whereas familiarity with the nature of religious
beliefs is necessary to understanding history and
contemporary events;
(c) Whereas the Bible is worthy of study for its literary
and historic qualities;
(d) Whereas many public schools throughout America are
currently teaching the Bible as literature and/or history;
Sec. . It is the sense of the Senate that nothing in this
Act or any provision of law shall discourage the teaching of
the Bible in any public school.''.
____
AMENDMENT NO. 415
(Purpose: To establish a grant program)
On page 565, between lines 18 and 19, insert the following:
``SEC. 4126. GRANTS FOR THE INTEGRATION OF SCHOOLS AND MENTAL
HEALTH SYSTEMS.
``(a) In General.--The Secretary shall award grants,
contracts, or cooperative agreements to State educational
agencies, local educational agencies, or Indian tribes, for
the purpose of increasing student access to quality mental
health care by developing innovative programs to link local
school systems with the local mental health system.
``(b) Duration.--With respect to a grant, contract, or
cooperative agreement awarded under this section, the period
during which payments under such award are made to the
recipient may not exceed 5 years.
``(c) Interagency agreements.--
``(1) Designation of lead agency.--The recipient of each
grant, contract, or cooperative agreement shall designate a
lead agency to direct the establishment of an interagency
agreement among local educational agencies, juvenile justice
authorities, mental health agencies, and other relevant
entities in the State, in collaboration with local entities
and parents and guardians of students.
``(2) Contents.--The interagency agreement shall ensure the
provision of the services to a student described in
subsection (e) specifying with respect to each agency,
authority or entity--
``(A) the financial responsibility for the services;
``(B) the conditions and terms of responsibility for the
services, including quality, accountability, and coordination
of the services; and
``(C) the conditions and terms of reimbursement among the
agencies, authorities or entities that are parties to the
interagency agreement, including procedures for dispute
resolution.
``(d) Application.--
``(1) In general.--To be eligible to receive a grant,
contract, or cooperative agreement under this section, a
State educational agency, local educational agency, or Indian
tribe shall submit an application to the Secretary at such
time, in such manner, and accompanied by such information as
the Secretary may reasonably require.
``(2) Content.--An application submitted under this section
shall--
``(A) describe the program to be funded under the grant,
contract, or cooperative agreement;
``(B) explain how such program will increase access to
quality mental health services for students;
``(C) explain how the applicant will establish a crisis
intervention program to provide immediate mental health
services to the school community when necessary;
``(D) provide assurances that--
``(i) persons providing services under the grant, contract
or cooperative agreement are adequately trained to provide
such services;
``(ii) the services will be provided in accordance with
subsection (e); and
``(iii) teachers, principal administrators, and other
school personnel are aware of the program;
``(E) explain how the applicant will support and integrate
existing school-based services with the program to provide
appropriate mental health services for students; and
``(F) explain how the applicant will establish a program
that will support students and the school in maintaining an
environment conducive to learning.
``(e) Use of Funds.--A State educational agency, local
educational agency, or Indian tribe, that receives a grant,
contract, or cooperative agreement under this section shall
use amounts made available through such grant, contract or
cooperative agreement to--
``(1) enhance, improve, or develop collaborative efforts
between school-based service systems and mental health
service systems to provide, enhance, or improve prevention,
diagnosis, and treatment services to students;
``(2) enhance the availability of crisis intervention
services, appropriate referrals for students potentially in
need of mental health services and on going mental health
services;
``(3) provide training for the school personnel and mental
health professionals who will participate in the program
carried out under this section;
``(4) provide technical assistance and consultation to
school systems and mental health agencies and families
participating in the program carried out under this section;
``(5) provide linguistically appropriate and culturally
competent services; and
``(6) evaluate the effectiveness of the program carried out
under this section in increasing student access to quality
mental health services, and make recommendations to the
Secretary about sustainability of the program.
``(f) Distribution of Awards.--The Secretary shall ensure
that grants, contracts, and cooperative agreements awarded
under subsection (a) are equitably distributed among the
geographical regions of the United States and between urban
and rural populations.
``(g) Other Services.--Any services provided through
programs established under this section must supplement and
not supplant existing Mental Health Services, including any
services required to be provided under the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq.).
``(h) Evaluation.--The Secretary shall evaluate each
program carried out by a State educational agency, local
educational agency, or Indian tribe, under this section and
shall disseminate the findings with respect to each such
evaluation to appropriate public and private entities.
``(i) Reporting.--Nothing in Federal law shall be
construed--
``(1) to prohibit an entity involved with the program from
reporting a crime that is committed by a student, to
appropriate authorities; or
``(2) to prevent State law enforcement and judicial
authorities from exercising their responsibilities with
regard to the application of Federal and State law to crimes
committed by a student.
``(j) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section, $50,000,000 for
fiscal year 2002, and such sums as may be necessary for
fiscal years 2003 through 2005.
amendment no. 404, as modified
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, every year, thousands of youth die in
the United States, not from cancer or car accidents, but by their own
hand, they make the choice that they want to die, and they take their
own life. Statistics show that suicide is the 3rd leading cause of
death among those 15 to 25 years of age, and it is the 6th leading
cause of death among those 5 to 14 years of age. 5 year old children,
killing themselves! But it's the truth. Statistics show that more than
13 of every 100,000 teenagers took their life in 1990, and that
number's rising every year. Many think that these are isolated
incidents, but they aren't. It is estimated that 500,000 teenagers try
to kill themselves every year, and about 5,000 succeed.
In my home State of Alaska, suicide is the greatest cause of death
among high school age youths. In fact, Alaska's suicide rate is more
than twice the rate for the entire United States. Recent studies have
shown that girls are more likely to report suicide thoughts, plans, and
attempts than are boys. Among Alaskan girls, 24.9 percent have
seriously thought about suicide, 20.5 percent have made a plan for
suicide, and 10 percent have reported a suicide attempt. Among Alaskan
boys, 12.5 percent have seriously thought about suicide, 10.8 percent
have made a plan for suicide, and 5.3 percent have reported a suicide
attempt. Alarmingly, Alaska Native teens attempt suicide at four times
the rate of non-Native teens.
Only recently have the knowledge and tools become available to
approach suicide as a preventable problem with realistic opportunities
to save lives. Last month the Surgeon General issued a ``National
Strategy for Suicide Prevention.'' The ``National Strategy'' requires a
variety of organizations and individuals to become involved in suicide
prevention and emphasizes coordination of resources and culturally
appropriate services at all levels of government--Federal, State,
tribal and community.
One of the objectives included in the Surgeon General's ``National
Strategy'' is developing and implementing suicide prevention programs.
His goal is to ensure the integration of suicide prevention into
organizations and agencies that have access to groups that may be at
risk. The objectives also address the need for planning at both the
State and local levels, the need for technical assistance in the
development of suicide
[[Page S5954]]
prevention programs and the need for ongoing evaluation. The amendment
I am proposing today would help implement these objectives. It would
allow for state and local educational agencies to create suicide
prevention programs through the Safe and Drug Free School and
Communities Program. Research has shown that many suicides are
preventable; however, effective suicide prevention programs require
commitment and resources. I feel that the Federal Government should
provide the resources and support to States and localities.
My amendment would allow the Secretary of Education to award $25
million worth of grants to elementary and secondary schools for the
purpose of: (1) developing and implementing suicide prevention
programs; and (2) provide for the training of school administrators,
faculty and staff with respect to identifying the warning signs of
suicide and creating a plan of action for helping those at risk.
This is a small step in the right direction. It is time that we do
something to fight the suicide epidemic. With an unacceptably high
suicide rate, more attention must be focused on both the causes and
solutions to this growing tragedy. I urge my colleagues to support this
amendment. America's youth are crying out for help.
Amendment No. 624, as Modified
Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise today to thank the distinguished
Senator from Massachusetts and the distinguished Senator from New
Hampshire for accepting amendment No. 624, an amendment to continue the
Blue Ribbon Schools program and authorize a demonstration program to
investigate how we can implement the best practices of Blue Ribbon
Schools in schools that this bill identifies as needing improvement.
The United States Department of Education awarded the first Blue
Ribbon designations to middle and high schools in 1982. The first
elementary schools received the designation in 1985. Since that time,
we have identified thousands of exemplary schools that have undergone a
thorough self-assessment involving parents, teachers, and community
members; evaluated their practices in areas such as school leadership,
professional development, curriculum, and student support services; and
proven that these practices work through performance on standardized
tests and other indicators. I think every member of this body can
attest to the quality of the Blue Ribbon Schools in his or her state.
The legislation before the Senate would create two new awards
programs, the Achievement in Education Awards and the No Child Left
Behind Awards. Mr. President, I did not offer this amendment in
opposition to the Department offering these awards. In fact, I support
the recognition of schools that significantly improve student
achievement. However, these two awards are outcomes-based, focused on
which schools improve test scores from one year to another. The Blue
Ribbon program offers a contrast. It recognizes schools that work with
parents and community members to identify shortcomings within the
school and design programs to successfully address those shortcomings.
I believe that we should continue to recognize these schools.
For the Blue Ribbon Program to continue and thrive, we must commit to
applying the information we gather from Blue Ribbon designees to offer
schools in need of improvement. This process works. Beaufort Elementary
School was included in a list of the 200 worst schools in South
Carolina during the 1994-95 school year. Yet instead of relying on an
academic or bureaucratic improvement process, the school constructed a
road map for reform using the successful practices of Blue Ribbon
Schools. Less then six years later, Beaufort Elementary received a Blue
Ribbon designation of its own, symbolizing a 180-degree turnaround.
Another school that has successfully used this process to generate
positive school reform is Handle Middle School in Columbia, SC. I hope
all of my colleagues will take the time to read the May 21, 2001 issue
of Time magazine that recognizes Hand Middle School as the Middle
School of the Year. The article does a much better job than I could of
describing a school that implemented changes based on the successful
practices of Blue Ribbon schools and rallied the community to create a
better, more productive learning environment for students. These
schools now serve as a model for other low-performing schools who are
working tirelessly to reverse their fortunes.
I have included new authorization in my amendment to allow the
Department of Education to initiate demonstration projects that would
use the best practices of Blue Ribbon Schools to turn around schools
that fail to make average yearly progress. This is an area that the
Department has neglected since the inception of the Blue Ribbon
Program. As we speak, filing cabinets full of Blue Ribbon applications
containing information on research-based educational practices that
work are doing little else but gathering dust. Let's take this
information and get it out to schools in need of improvement and see
how it works.
This is not a bureaucratic or regimented process. This is not a
process that involves Federal or state governments mandating one
approach over another. This is not a process that attempts to reinvent
the wheel. This would be a process that disseminates information on
practices that we know are effective. I envision schools first
identifying an area for development--whether it be a new reading
curriculum, teacher mentoring or a dropout prevention program. Next,
they are able to examine records from Blue Ribbon Schools that have
implemented similar programs and decide which approach best fits their
own needs. Because these programs come from Blue Ribbon Schools, they
are researched-based and have been favorably reviewed by educational
experts. I have also required the Secretary to report to Congress on
the effectiveness of these demonstration projects 3 years after the
demonstration begins, so we will know if this process is working.
Mr. KENNEDY. I thank our colleagues for their cooperation. We have
been making important progress. I am not sure we can say yet tonight
that the end is quite in sight, but hopefully we can say that at the
early part at the end of the day on Tuesday we might be able to see a
glimmer of hope for reaching a final disposition of this legislation.
I thank all colleagues for their cooperation, and I thank my friend
from New Hampshire, Senator Gregg, and, as always, the Senator from
Nevada, Mr. Reid.
Mr. REID. Madam President, before going to morning business, I
compliment the managers of this legislation. It is obvious they are
both veterans and understand the legislative process. We have made
great progress the last 2 days.
As Senator Kennedy has said, next week we should be able to finish
this bill with a little bit of luck.
____________________